web analytics
January 30, 2015 / 10 Shevat, 5775
 
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


The Art of “Gray-Hull Diplomacy”


USS Independence

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

Both clauses in that sentence are essential:  it doesn’t matter if there are three, four, or five carriers in the Gulf, if Iran doesn’t believe we intend to use them in the near future against her nuclear program.  Iran’s highest priority is developing nuclear weapons, and whatever she can wait out or endure to achieve that end, she will.  Multiple carriers sitting off her coast for months on end have made no difference to her intentions, and they aren’t going to.

To intimidate Iran with military force, there are three basic requirements.  First, the force must be designed for the threat.  We can’t invade Iran with the 15,000 troops in Kuwait (nor, I hasten to add, should we want to invade Iran at all).  It would be foolish to imply that we might invade Iran with ground troops if we clearly don’t have the forces in the area to do the job.  A more realistic threat would be, say, a select embargo of Iran, which we could accomplish through military force, either more easily – with the cooperation of Iran’s neighbors and trading partners – or less easily, if we had to literally warn off the entire world with the US military.

We don’t have the forces in theater to make good on the latter threat, nor have we seriously implied such a threat.  Iran therefore has no reason to behave as if this is a meaningful threat.

The second basic requirement is a strict, relatively brief timeline for enforcement and/or Iran’s compliance.  A deadline of “next year sometime” is meaningless, and continued talks, without any verifiable effort at compliance, are merely a delaying tactic.

The third requirement is a realistic, executable, and meaningful threat.  As long as threats are vague and only vaguely implied, Iran has nothing to respond to, and will merely continue what she’s doing with some additional amount of irritation.  A threat that meets the criteria – realistic, executable, and meaningful – might be something like a military embargo of Iran’s maritime oil and gas trade.  Such an embargo wouldn’t stop all oil and gas from getting into or out of Iran, but it would stop a lot, and for an operationally significant amount of time.  (Eventually, Iran and her neighbors would develop ways of moving the oil and gas by other means.)  This threat would require holding Iran’s naval, coastal, and air assets at risk, with the threat that if they were used they would be destroyed.

Essential to any such threat would be a next level of threat to hold over Iran, and a program of compliance for her leadership.  Threats like the one outlined above gradually lose their meaning and become mere features of the regional trade system if they are not followed up with rapid, credible escalation.  Saddam adapted to the military embargo of his oil and gas trade – and people at the UN were making money off of it within a few years.  So was Iran, which took a big cut from the sanctions-busters who for 12 years  ferried oil and other contraband to and from Iraq in small freighters and dhows.

A credible US president might approach the Iran-nuclear problem by giving Iran a short, specified amount of time to comply with a set of requirements for inspection and turnover of enriched uranium.  The threat would be escalatory – from the current level of sanctions to a military attack on Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities – and would be backed up by a deployment of forces sufficient to make good the threat.  The US would assume a posture of sea and air control in Iran’s southern portion during this period, clarifying that the Iranians courted destruction of their military assets if their posture became provocative.

The build-up – which should visibly include at least three carrier strike groups, one or two amphibious task forces, additional squadrons of Air Force strike-fighters, the deployment of bombers (B-2 and B-52) to Guam, and a beefed-up Army force in Kuwait, with special forces, air defense, infantry, and civil security capabilities, along with an increased missile defense footprint around the Gulf – would take as much as 45 days, but could probably be largely accomplished in 30.  This would make for a meaningfully rapid timeline on which to require Iranian compliance.

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
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.
Sen. Cruz Asks if Obama ‘Launched Political Campaign against Netanyahu’
Latest Indepth Stories
Israeli-flag

At some point we need to stop simply defending and promoting Israel and start living in Israel

Rabbi Berel Wein

“We Jews are the only people who when we drop a book on the floor pick it up and kiss it.”

Rabbi Sholom Klass

Though Zaide was the publisher of The Jewish Press, a big newspaper,I always remember him learning

Sheldon Silver

Speaker Silver has been an extraordinary public servant since his election to the Assembly in 1975 and has been an exemplary leader of that body since 1994.

He spent the first leg of his daylong visit to the French capital at Hyper Cacher.

Drawing Congress into the Iran nuclear debate is the last thing the White House wants.

Great leaders like Miriam and like Sarah Schenirer possess the capacity to challenge the status quo that confronts them.

Obama’s foreign policy is viewed by both liberals and conservatives as deeply flawed

Many journalists are covertly blaming the Charlie Hebdo writers themselves through self-censorship.

Why does the Times relay different motivations and narratives for jihadists in Europe and Israel?

To defeat parasites-the hosts of terrorists-we need to deny them new people, potential terrorists

Combating Amalek doesn’t mean all who disagree with you is evil-rather whom to follow and to oppose

Desperate people take what they can, seizing opportunity to advance their main goal; the Arabs don’t

There was a glaring void in the President’s State of the Union speech: Israel.

More Articles from J. E. Dyer
Golan map

Obama’s Syrian policy failures created the current situation in the Golan Heights.

syria_iran_map

Remnants of Assad’s nuclear program are alive and well, under the control of Hezbollah and Iran

Under Obama, US foreign policy is losing sanity & common sense in diplomatic representation abroad

Obama obtained NO verifiable commitments from Cuba it would desist from acts prejudicial to the US

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

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

“Ofsted is not looking for answers to questions which are contrary to their faith, simply that they are able to express views which are neither intolerant nor discriminatory towards others. This is vital if we are to make sure young people are ready for life in modern Britain.” The actual questions asked make life in […]

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

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: