web analytics
November 26, 2014 / 4 Kislev, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
IDC Herzliya Campus A Day on Campus

To mark IDC Herzliya’s 20th anniversary, we spent a day following Prof. Uriel Reichman, IDC’s founder and president, and Jonathan Davis, VP for External Relations, around its delightful campus.



The Art of “Gray-Hull Diplomacy”


USS Independence

USS Independence
Photo Credit: U.S. Navy/Naval Air Crewman 2nd Class Nicholas Kontodiakos

I received a question last week from a correspondent:

I was wondering if you could suggest some manners in which the US could make the military option more credible against Iran.

To my request for clarification, the correspondent replied that this question was more about how to credibly intimidate Iran than about how to effectively interdict Iran’s nuclear program with military force.

It’s a very good question.  How should an American president use the military in an intimidating, persuasive manner, to induce Iran to give up her nuclear-weapons purpose?  Very little has been discussed on this topic in the forums of punditry; virtually all treatments focus on the feasibility or proper method of a military attack campaign.  Is there an “intimidation option,” short of a shooting war?  And if so, what would it look like?

The first principle in answering these questions is that intimidation is personal, not mechanical.  There is no force package that is more effectively intimidating than another, if the will to carry out one’s threats is not considered credible.  The short and non-flippant answer to my correspondent’s question is, “Get another president in the White House.”  Changing an opponent’s intentions through intimidation is entirely about credibility, and credibility comes from the threatener’s history and perceived character.

This is especially true as regards the United States.  We have three aircraft carrier strike groups in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf right now, something no other nation can possibly do.  (We won’t have three a few weeks from now; two of the carriers are swapping out on station, and thereafter our two-carrier presence will be maintained.)  We have Air Force strike-fighters in the Gulf, about 15,000 US Army troops in Kuwait, and tens of thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan, along with air assets.  We have an amphibious group with a Marine battalion in the Gulf region as well.  In spite of our drawdown over the last 20 years, we retain forces in Europe and Turkey, as well as the still-large package of permanently-stationed forces we have in the Far East.

We have the conventional forces to be intimidating with.  The question about our credibility is not related to the believability of our military capacities.  It’s about the leadership and will behind them.

But from a methodological standpoint, leadership and will can produce different courses of action, and they are not all equally effective.  Presidents Bush and Obama have chosen not to use the US military to increase the pressure on Iran, and the “escalation” path adopted by the Perm-5 + 1 has been selected for its extreme slowness and incremental nature.

It’s worth taking a moment to clarify the point that we aren’t using military power to increase pressure on Iran.  The US forces in Southwest Asia have been drawn down absolutely since 2008, and outside of Afghanistan, what we have kept or sent to the theater since then has been purely defensive.  Incremental defensive preparations, such as the introduction of additional minesweepers or anti-missile batteries around the Gulf, are not a means of intimidation.  They are not attack assets.  The current mix of US forces in the Gulf region indicates that we believe Israel and/or Iran might mount a military initiative.  It does not indicate that we intend to.  The US force posture around the Gulf is a defensive one, indicating our intention to have the option of reacting.

The UN and US sanctions on Iran have, meanwhile, been incremental and very slow-acting.  The issue for our purposes is not whether that is “good” or “bad,” but whether it is effective.  Objectively, the sanctions in place are not discouraging or usefully delaying Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons.  Nations like China, India, and Germany continue to do robust business with Iran, not only supplying Iran with hard currency by buying her oil, but selling her technology and materials for her nuclear program.  In spite of the annoying impediments created by the international community, Iran continues to expand her uranium-enrichment operations and to deny IAEA access to suspect facilities.  The program of multilateral talks with Iran merely serves Iran’s purpose of dragging out the current situation, which is favorable for her objectives.

The mere presence of military forces is not automatically intimidating, nor is there an intimidation formula that prescribes levels or combinations of force.  What intimidation boils down to in this case is Iran’s perception of what we intend to do with our forces, on an operationally significant timeline.

About the Author: J.E. Dyer is a retired US Naval intelligence officer who served around the world, afloat and ashore, from 1983 to 2004.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “The Art of “Gray-Hull Diplomacy””

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Ferguson, Missouri: rioting against racism, encouraging murder
The Foul Stench of the Ferguson Fallout
Latest Indepth Stories
Rabbi Maurice Lamm

Creativity without clarity is not sufficient for writing. I am eternally thankful to Hashem for his gift to me.

Golden presents a compelling saga of poor but determined immigrants who fled pogroms and harsh conditions in their homelands for a better life in a land of opportunity.

It seems to us that while the Jewish entitlement to the land of Israel transcends the Holocaust, the Jewish experience during that tragic time is the most solid of foundations for these “national rights.”

Too many self-styled civil rights activists seemed determined to force, by their relentless pressure, an indictment regardless of what an investigation might turn up.

Egypt’s al-Sisi is in an expansionist mood. He wants Israel’s permission to take over Judea and Samaria.

Cries of justice for Michael Brown drowned out any call for justice for Police Officer Daryl Wilson.

Cloistered captain Obama, touts his talents and has the temerity to taunt Bibi,his besieged ally

Former PM Ariel Sharon succinctly said, “the fate of Netzarim (Gush Katif) is the fate of Tel-Aviv.”

“What’s a line between friends?”

Unrest in YESHA and J’m helps Abbas and Abdullah defuse anger, gain politically and appear moderates

A “Shliach” means to do acts with complete devotion and dedication in order to help bring Moshiach.

The pogroms in Chevron took place eighty five years ago, in 1929; the Holocaust began seventy-five years ago in 1939; the joint attack of Israel’s neighbors against the Jewish State of Israel happened sixty-six years ago… yet, world history of anti-Semitism did not stop there, but continues until today. Yes, the primitive reality of Jews […]

“We don’t just care for the children; we make sure they have the best quality of life.”

“Why do people get complacent with the things they’re told?”

More Articles from J. E. Dyer
Iran officials meet with G 5+1 officials in Geneva. Weapons to Gaza will not derail the talks.

We would be fools to take seriously assurances from Joe Biden.

Which glass has the poison?

The White House wanted to defame Netanyahu, undermine his reputation, impugn him & his policies

{Originally posted on author’s site, Liberty Unyielding} Never let a crisis go to waste. That’s the mantra – and a new development in Britain demonstrates how the Western left lives by it, and contributes thereby to the destruction of Western culture. Alert readers will remember the so-called “Trojan Horse plot” in Birmingham, first reported in […]

It’s likely that some of the rebel factions, including US clients, have indeed made pacts with ISIS

Another nation – probably Iran, possibly Russia and/or Syria – is entering the fight in Iraq in a new and fully committed way.

There is now NO possible explanation for not evacuating at least non-essential personnel from the U.S. embassy and consulates in Iraq.

ISIS is executing, slowly but surely, a pincer move on Baghdad.

The ISIS guerrillas are a problem for Iran. It arose because of the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/j-e-dyer/j-e-dyer-the-art-of-gray-hull-diplomacy/2012/07/18/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: