U.S./Iran Posturing
Indicates More Severe Combat to Come:
Who Will Throw the
War-Launch Punch?
Playing Battleship (Part 1
of 2)
Acts of taunting continue to occur
in what resembles a relationship of sibling rivalry between the United States
and Iran. Yet how long can either continue to make these close calls until one
hothead administration blows its top? I have no intention to point a finger at
either country with a “he started it!” point of view. Tensions between Iran and
the U.S. date far back in history and continue on. From the involvement of the
CIA in orchestrating a coup ousting Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq in
1955 to American military protection from Iranian
attacks of Kuwaiti oil tankers in 1987 and 1988, objectives that the
countries hold in common are consistent: oil access and its vital trade route,
the Strait of Hormuz.
From 1988 on, a series of short
battles and standoffs continue, increasing military engagement in and around
the Strait of Hormuz. The overall animosity and distrust has led to unnecessary
tragedies, such as the American warship USS
Vincennes that in 1988, shot down an Iranian Airbus after mistaking it for a F-14A
Tomcat fighter jet, killing all 290 people on board. In 2008, a U.S.
destroyer almost opened fire on an Iranian ship after receiving radio messages misinterpreted
as an impending attack. News of the brief capture of U.S. sailors by Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in January 2016 caught the attention of the U.S.
general public. Many who follow world events on a surface level may have
suffered from selective hearing once the words “U.S. naval captives” and “Iran”
came about through the media. Although the U.S. navy was admittedly at fault
for crossing into territorial waters, the brief crisis spurred memories of the
1979 Iran Hostage Crisis for many Americans. This, in turn, brought forth
nationalist assumptions that strengthened the notion of Iran’s position in the
“axis of evil.”
Varying Versions
Each point of view from the opposing
countries must be taken into account to fully understand how administrations
and media skew public opinion and ultimately create a more unified animosity
toward the other. There is a nuance of specific terminology government
officials and the media use that create contradictory public assumptions. For
example, U.S. media called the sailors “captured” and Iranian officials
referred to the situation as the sailors being “detained.” This directly
affects how the public views the incident. These official, yet conflicting
statements made by the separate administrations leave citizens in both
countries picking sides, predominantly backing their own government leaders.
With strong public opinion comes a sense of nationalism and defense of one’s
beliefs. These beliefs will ultimately lead to a cause for war when each side
continues to live with such ardent hostility.
Nationalism and territorial rights
are intertwined. The Strait of Hormuz is 20.75 miles across at its narrowest.
In compliance with the Law of Sea Treaty’s 12-mile territorial sea clause, Iran
and Oman share territorial water of the Strait of Hormuz and the right to
regulate the waters to ensure the security of their country. Ships have the
right of innocent passage, including military craft as transit vessels. In
Article 16, Section III of the 1958 Geneva Convention, the rule is established
that transit is innocent only “so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace,
good order or security of the coastal state.” A coastal state is given the
right to take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage
that is not innocent. “This phraseology is nebulous enough as it stands;
furthermore, the use of the word ‘prejudicial’ suggests that an actual injury
to peace, good order, or security need not be taking place for the passage to
be deemed no longer innocent. If a reasonable chance exists that such injury
may be in the offing, the coastal state would be in a strong position to decide
that the passage is not innocent and exclude the vessel from its territorial
waters.”
Iran has maintained that a coastal
State’s sovereignty is subject only to the exercise of the right of innocent
passage of ships and that when straits are situated within the territorial sea
of one or more States, the legal status of territorial waters must not be
affected by the passage through straits used for international navigation. Iran
is especially interested in regulating passage through the strait and that free
transit or innocent passage exists only when states comply with pertinent
regulations. Iran and the US have signed the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) III but neither has ratified it. Due to the value of the
Strait of Hormuz, Iran still holds concerns regarding the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Iran holds the belief that passage of other states’ naval ships from
territorial waters is dependent on prior notification and observance of the
requirements of innocent passage. Innocent passage is subjective, especially
when dealing with an outlier country like Iran who wants to assert its presence
within the world’s powers. The naval disputes that are occurring at an
increasing rate have caused the U.S. and other countries to use military escort
ships when crossing for security purposes.
Transit Tension
Starting on Tuesday, August 23,
2016, four separate naval engagements occurred between the countries in one
week. Four ships belonging to Iran’s IRGC were said
to have intercepted two American vessels at high speed, coming within 300 yards
of the USS Nitze. “The USS Nitze was accompanied by the guided missile
destroyer USS Mason on what an official described as a ‘routine transit’ in
international waters at the time of the incident.” The Nitze attempted to make
radio contact 12 times with no response; the Iranian ships continued their
approach, and the destroyer sounded five short blasts on its whistle, an
international danger signal. Leaving the Nitze crew no choice, the vessel was
forced to change its course at the expense of coming very close to offshore oilrigs
to avoid the Iranian ships. Here, a reader must again consider the two countries’
interpretation of the word “intercept.” The legality of the interception of the
vessel is likely dependent on learned bias.
The following day, American coastal
patrol ships the Squall and the Tempest, said to be operating in international
waters, were harassed by three boats from the IRGC Navy, “which crisscrossed
the Tempest’s bow and created ‘a possible collision hazard’.” Later on, the
same day, an Iranian patrol vessel approached the Tempest head-on; ignoring
repeated multiple flare, radio, and loudspeaker warnings. The vessel turned
away when the Squall then fired three warning shots from its 50-caliber gun. Again
on Wednesday, the same patrol vessel that had incited the conflict with the
Tempest, intercepted the Stout, a guided missile destroyer, three times. Cmdr.
Bill Urban, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, stated “the Stout
maneuvered away and ‘employed devices,’ which he did not identify, in order to
dissuade the Iranian vessel from further harassment.” Again, on September 4,
2016, seven Iranian fast-attack boats swarmed a coastal boat, the USS Firebolt.
One boat came to a stop 100 yards in front of the American ship. In 2016, 35 Iranian
fast-boat encounters occurred that were deemed unsafe and unprofessional.
The USS Mahan, a destroyer, fired
warning shots and used radio calls, flares, and signals when five Iranian ships
came 900 yards from three U.S. vessels entering the Strait on January 9, 2017. A
US helicopter dropped smoke grenades to deter any further interference. On
March 6, 2017, the USNS Invincible, a tracking ship, accompanied by three
British Royal Navy ships, were forced to change course when multiple IRGS
vessels came within 600 yards of the entourage. An unnamed US official stated
that once again radio communications to Iranian ships were not answered. The
official also did not disclose where in the Strait the incident occurred.
Iran’s stance on these events is
quite different. Defense minister, Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan, stated that naval
control and patrols take place only in Iran’s territorial waters and Iran would
take action if an intrusion were deemed aggressive. As well, Ayatollah Khamenei
“underlined that security of the Persian Gulf region comes within the purview of
the regional countries alone, and dismissed the US claim of seeking security in
the region.” Khamenei stated that the Persian Gulf security relates to regional
countries with common interests, “and not to the US.” He concluded that countries
within the Gulf region should provide security to the region itself. Mehdi
Hashemi, commander of the IRGC’s Zolfaqar Flotilla, asserted that USNS
Invincible was at fault for sailing too close to IRGC vessels in the most
recent incident in March. His claim mirrors Khamenei, stating American and
British vessels presence in the Gulf region “endangers the security of this
strategic region, which provides a huge portion of the world’s energy.”
Belligerents’ Battlegrounds
Disagreements between the two
governments differ as to whether these encounters have occurred within
international or territorial waters. The Strait of Hormuz is a geopolitical chokepoint,
through which at least 20 percent of the world’s oil flows. The encounters have
all been dangerous; the causes of instigation and fault of the countries are
disputed each time one occurs. Within the last weeks of March, President Trump vowed that if the US Navy
were harassed by Iranian vessels in the Gulf, they would be “shot out of the
water.” Army General Joseph Votel of the US Central
Command called on the US leadership to take military action against Iran.
Speaking to the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives of the
US Congress, Votel asserted that Iran is the greatest threat to peace in the
Middle East.
In response to statements made by
the US military commander, Iran's Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan advised the
US to stop bothering the regional countries and leave the Persian Gulf. Chief
editor of the newspaper Iran Press Emad Abshenass stated that the US poses a
threat to Iran by trying to invade Iranian waters or come as close as possible.
He posed that “Iran in turn can also decide to conduct maneuvers in
international waters, say, in the Gulf of Mexico.” This supposition may become
a reality on the heels of an exercise involving 11 ships and US Navy guided-missile
destroyer Mahan that included defensive navigation tactics, gunnery training,
ship boarding and search-and-rescue that was recently conducted; the first of
its kind since 2011. This exercise is a new trilateral format that will replace
separate US-Iraq and US-Kuwait bilateral monthly exercises and be conducted
quarterly. The exercises are driven by the three nations’ desire to
cooperatively address threats that exist in the Persian Gulf. If and when Iran
begins conducting its own war games in the Gulf of Mexico, US reaction to such a
strategic move such is dubious. The sibling posturing will reach its end and
may spark the beginning of war.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment