US Election Winner May Face a Dangerous Iran

Iran Review
Shahir ShahidSaless

Iran is likely to adopt a new and aggressive stance on the nuclear matter because Iranian leaders surmise that they can change the game. This position, however, may lead to an all-out war.

Following the European Union ministers meeting in Luxembourg 

on October 15, more sanctions were announced against Iran. According to the new set of sanctions all transactions between European and Iranian banks will be prohibited, except those with advance official permission or for humanitarian purposes, sources report. Analysts say that as a result of new sanctions Iran will lose the ability to clear its oil money in Euros. While Iran is already locked out of US transactions, these new EU sanctions can paralyze the country’s trade.

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, in a speech to the United Jewish Israel Appeal in London, said: “I have said to Prime Minister Netanyahu that now is not the time for Israel to resort to military action.” He added, “The regime faces unprecedented pressure and the people are on the streets...We need the courage to give these sanctions time to work.”

Part of Mr. Cameron’s assertion is true. The economic situation in Iran is becoming perilous. As the national currency crisis unfolds, inflation is spiraling out of control. Sanctions have reduced Iran’s oil production to a 22-year low, while sanctions have also made it extremely difficult to access and transfer oil money. Mohsen Rezaii, Secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council, remarked, “They have made trade difficult for us. They don’t let us sell oil and when we sell oil, don’t let us get our money from the Chinese bank[s].” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who in the past dismissed the effects of sanctions, for the first time during an angry speech, said, “These sanctions are barbaric. This is a war against a nation.”

However, Mr. Cameron and policy-makers in the US completely ignore the fact that the status quo is precariously unstable. It would be a grave mistake to assume that the Iranian government will stand idly by while gripped by paralyzing sanctions, and with its very survival threatened.

The potential for retaliation by Iran against sanctions has been a concern for the West in recent years. Iran repeatedly states that it has the capability of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Last month’s massive minesweeping exercise in the Persian Gulf, led by the US, reflected this West’s concern.

Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates opened new pipelines that when they become fully operational will be able to bypass the strait and handle 6.5 million barrels of oil per day.  The figure represents 40 percent of the oil exported from the region. However, still the majority of oil must be traded by using supertankers that should pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Besides Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain do not have any alternative route to ship their oil.

Until recently, observers reasoned that the likelihood of Iran closing the strait would be slim because Hormuz is the only route for Iran’s oil exports, and the main route for its food imports. This calculus, however, appears tottery and uncertain today, as Iran’s oil export plummets, clearing its oil money becomes extremely hard, and its economy steeply declines.

With sanctions tightening, dangerously reduced oil revenue may lead Iran’s leadership to the conclusion that a radical move in the Strait of Hormuz is a calculated risk that could ultimately change the game in favor of Iran.

Contrary to the US officials’ perception, keeping the Hormuz Strait open is not the issue. The crux of the strait issue resides in keeping it safe and secure, thus guaranteeing uninterrupted flow of oil. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, current international relations professor at John Hopkins University maintains, once the strait becomes a dangerous place the price of oil will skyrocket even it is not closed.   

Iran can disrupt energy supplies - including oil and 20 percent of globally-traded liquefied natural gas - without closing the strait. In July 2012, Fars News, the news agency which reflects viewpoints of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), published a long, meticulously researched, and noteworthy paper titled, “A study about the role of the Strait of Hormuz in the balance of power between Iran and the West.” The paper read:

“...complete closing of the strait by the Islamic Republic of Iran for extended duration may lead to the formation of an international coalition against Iran...therefore it doesn’t seem a logical option. But another option for the Islamic Republic of Iran is to imperil those traveling through the Strait of Hormuz...The outcome of this action would be the formation of a crisis in the global economy and a divergence between oil consuming countries and America. Meanwhile, as the economies of Europe and America toil, any disruption in oil supply will intensify the crisis. In fact, closing the Strait of Hormuz would mean, ‘making naval transit unsafe and the region look like a war zone,’ so that no government feels immune to an attack by [our] conventional armed forces, unidentified boats, or naval mines.”

Iran may use proxies to carry out attacks without directly becoming involved or simply stop supertankers from passage through its territorial waters in the narrowest parts of Hormuz, under the pretext of inspection. As oil prices soar, the conflict between Iran and the US could spiral, and ultimately transform into a disastrous military conflict.

The root cause of the deadlock over Iran’s nuclear program is the demand by the US (and of course Israel) for “zero-enrichment.” This exaction will most likely meet with insouciance, regardless of how much pressure is imposed on Iran. Iran’s leadership, even if it wanted to, could not agree with any resolution resulting in the complete suspension of their uranium enrichment program, due to the reasons and perceived costs that this author have discussed before.

The current pattern exponentially heightens the potential for a military conflict, unless demands for the complete suspension of uranium enrichment are replaced by strict and intrusive monitoring by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to limit Iran’s enrichment of uranium.

For the moment, US presidential elections have stifled new developments. Once the elections conclude, whether for the current US administration or a new president and his cabinet, Iran, most likely appearing dangerous, will take the center stage.

*This article is part of Insider & Insight, a new AIC program aimed at providing different perspectives and analyses on key developments in US-Iran relations. The commentary and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of American Iranian Council.

Source: American Iranian Council (AIC)
http://american-iranian.org/

More By Shahir Shahidsaless:

*Netanyahu, Betting ‘All-In’ for High Stakes Iran Game?:http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Netanyahu-Betting-All-In-for-High-Stakes-Iran-Game-.htm

*Current Trend in US-Iran Relations: A Road to Hell: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Current-Trend-in-US-Iran-Relations-A-Road-to-Hell.htm

Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Options

A Historical Perspective

Global Research
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

George Santayana wisely said: “"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  Oblivious to history and its lessons, America and its Western allies are repeating their actions of the  1950’s -- that of imposing an oil embargo on Iran.   The American-led alliance has forgotten the past.    Iran remembers. When under the leadership of the nationalist Dr. Mossadegh, Iran opted to nationalize its oil industry,  the British Royal Navy blocked Iran’s oil exports to forcefully prevent if from nationalizing its oil.  In retaliation to Iran’s nationalistic ambitions, and to punish Iran for pursuing its national interests, the British instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil. In the 1950’s, Iran did not have the military might to retaliate to the oil embargo and the naval blockade was aimed at crushing the economy in order to bring about regime change.   The subsequent events is described in The New York Times[i] article  as a “lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid” when an oil-rich Third World nation “goes berserk with fanatical nationalism.”   Iran learnt that sovereignty and nationalism necessitate tactical/military strength and determination.  Not heeding the aftermath of the 1950’s,  the American-led Western allies have once again imposed an oil embargo on Iran.  In retaliation,  Iran has drafted a bill to stop the flow of oil through its territorial waters – the Strait of Hormuz, to countries which have imposed sanctions against it.  This bill is not without merit and contrary to the previous oil embargo, it would appear that Tehran has the upper hand and the heavy cost associated with the embargo will not be borne by Iran alone. Iran’s Legal Standing The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that vessels can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage.  Although Iran has signed the Treaty, the Treaty was not ratified, as such, it has no legal standing.    However, even if one overlooks the non-binding signature, under UNCLOS framework of international law, a coastal state can block ships from entering its territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms “peace, good order or security” of said state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed “innocent”2. Even if Iran simply chooses to merely delay the passage of tankers by exercising its right to inspect every oil-tanker that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, these inspections and subsequent delays would maintain or contribute to higher oil prices.    While higher oil prices would benefit Iran and other oil-producing countries, they would further destabilize the European economy which is already in crisis.     The  Military Option Although American-led Western allies are flexing their muscles by sending battle ships to the Persian Gulf, Washington’s own war game exercise, The Millennium Challenge 2002 with a price tag of $250 million, underscored America’s inability to defeat Iran.  Oblivious to the lesson of its own making, by sending more warships to the Persian Gulf, the United States is inching towards a full scale conflict.   The inherent danger from the naval buildup is that unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis, the forces in the Persian Gulf are not confined to two leaders who would be able to communicate to stop a run-away situation.   Nor would the consequences of such a potential conflict be limited to the region.       Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy.    While only 1.1 millions barrels per day goes to the United States, a significant amount of this oil is destined for Europe.  Surely, one must ask why the United States demands that its “European allies” act contrary to their own national interest, pay a higher price for oil by boycotting Iranian oil and running the risk of Iran blocking the passage of other oil-tankers destined for them?  Again, history has the straight answer.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, the United States  and not the oil-producing countries has used oil as a weapon.  Some examples include the pressure the United States put on Britain in the 1920s to share its oil concessions in the Middle East with U.S. companies.  Post World War II,  the United States violated the terms of the 1928 Red Line Agreement freezing the British and the French out of the Agreement.   In 1956, the United States made it clear to Britain and France that no oil would be sent to Western Europe unless the two aforementioned countries agreed to a rapid withdrawal from Egypt.  The U.S.  was not opposed to the overthrow of Nasser, but as Eisenhower said: “Had they done it quickly, we would have accepted it"3.     Demonstrably, although Europe is a major trade partner of the United States, the U.S. does not concern itself with Europe’s well being when it comes to executing its foreign policy.   This should come as no surprise, especially since the United States sacrifices its own national interest to promote the Israeli agenda and that of the military industrial complex.   But this does not explain why Europe would shoot itself in the foot at a time when its economical woes have passed the crisis point.  It is possible that the leaders of Western European countries are beholden to special interest groups – the pro-Israel lobbies, as the United States is, or they believe Iran will not call their bluff by ratifying the bill passed by Majlis and their oil will be delivered unhindered; perhaps both.  Either way, they are committing financial suicide and their demise may well come before Iran’s resolve  is shaken. Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.  Notes 1“THE IRANIAN ACCORD”, The New York  Times, Aug 6,1954, cited by S. Shalom 2 Martin Wahlisch, The Yale Journal of International Law, March 2012, citing UNCLOS, supra note 12, , art. 19, para1, and art. 25, para1. 3  Stephen Shalom; The Iran-Iraq War citing Kennett Love, Suez: the Twice-Fought War, New York: McGraw Hill, 1969, p. 651
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

Iran Prepares Its Submarine Fleet For Blockade Of The Strait Of Hormuz

Business Insider
Robert Johnson

We reported a couple weeks ago that Iran was demanding all U.S. ships entering the Strait of Hormuz stop and check in with the Revolutionary Guard. Now, they're saying that move has blockaded the Strait of Hormuz.

FARS News Agency, Tehran's state run media outlet, announced  Tehran is continuing a full blockade on all ships entering the Strait, with each undergoing inspection.

From FARS:

"The alien vessels which enter the Persian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz always provide the needed answers and information to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) units," Lieutenant Commander of the IRGC Naval Force Alireza Tangsiri said on Wednesday.

He further noted the deployment of a US aircraft carrier in the region, and said, "This vessel, similar to the other warships, answered all the questions asked by the IRGC Navy without any problem or making any particular move and then continued the path to its specified destination."

The UPI reports that Iran's fleet of 20 submarines are much on the mind of U.S. military officials as Tehran increases it's bluster and stance in the Strait.

The submarines are seen as a danger to international tanker traffic, which ships one-fifth of the world's oil supplies through the narrow strait every day, and to Western warships if Iran carries out its threat to close Hormuz if its oil exports are blocked.

U.S. military planners must factor in the Iranian submarine threat as the Americans, spearheaded by the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet based in Bahrain, square off for possible conflict with Iran over its contentious nuclear program. "The Iranians would not have acquired so many submarines if they did not think they would come in handy," U.S. defense analyst Scott Charney observed in an April 9 assessment of Iranian submarine capabilities.

Tehran's submarine fleet is led by three Russian Kilo-class diesel electric boats, deep water subs halfway through their 30-year lifespan, and a large number of "midget" subs that can lurk in the shallow waters of the strait.

One 76-foot Nahang, which means whale in Farsi, is supposed to be completely stealth and able to evade detection.

Finally, Iraq President Nuri al-Maliki is in Iran bolstering ties with its neighbor and ironing out trade agreements.

Dina Al-Shibeeb at Al-Aribaya reports Iran’s first vice president Mohammed Ridha Rihaimi said the two countries will "form a great international power," if they succeed in forming an alliance.

From Al-Aribiya:

He pointed out to the two countries’ “special relations,” and how both were facing “international conspiracies due to their beliefs and goals.” He did not elaborate on what these beliefs or goals include.

The two countries’ trade agreements must be speedily fulfilled, he added. The agreements include railway projects connecting the two neighboring countries and cooperation between their oil and airline industries. 

US Navy in military build-up to battle Strait of Hormuz 'blockade'

Russia Today

The US Navy has confirmed it is doubling the number of minesweepers in the Persian Gulf in an apparent move to prepare for a possible standoff with Iran over the crucial oil export route.

An additional four minesweeper and four minesweeping helicopters will join the four ships already patrolling the Persian Gulf.

The overall number of US minesweepers in the region will total eight, America’s head of naval operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert reported.

While saying sanctions and political measures are preferable to respond to Iran’s controversial nuclear program, looks like the US is getting ready for plan B.

The US has been working of an array of military measures to counteract Iran, with President Obama saying “no options are off the table.”

The Pentagon has recently asked for an additional $100 million dollars to beef up its military presence in the Persian Gulf.

About one fifth of the world’s oil passes through The Strait of Hormuz.

Earlier Tehran promised to block the primary route of oil exports from the region in retaliation to new US and EU-backed sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

In January, General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed Iran indeed has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time,” and the US must get ready to reopen it in case of a blockade.

Currency Warfare: What are the Real Targets of the E.U. Oil Embargo against Iran?

Global Research
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Against whom is the European Union’s so-called “oil embargo on Iran” really aimed at?

This is an important geo-strategic question. Aside from rejecting the new E.U. measures against Iran as counter-productive, Tehran has warned the member states of the European Union that the E.U. oil embargo against Iran will hurt them and their economies far more than Iran.

Tehran has thus warned the leaders of the E.U. countries that the new sanctions are foolish and against their national and bloc interests. But is this correct? At the end of the day, who will benefit from the chain of events that are being set into motion?

Are Oil Embargos against Iran New?

Oil embargos against Iran are not new. In 1951, the Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh with the support of the Iranian Parliament nationalized the Iranian oil industry. As a result of Dr. Mossadegh’s nationalization program, the British militarily blockaded the territorial waters and national ports of Iran with the British Royal Navy and prevented Iran from exporting its oil. They also militarily prevented Iranian trade. London also froze Iranian assets and started a campaign to isolate Iran with sanctions. The government of Dr. Mossadegh was democratic and could not be vilified easily domestically by the British, so they began to portray Mossadegh as a pawn of the Soviet Union who would turn Iran into a communist country together with his Marxist political allies.

The illegal British naval embargo was followed by regime change in Tehran via a 1953 Anglo-American engineered coup d’état. The 1953 coup transformed the Shah of Iran from a constitutional figure head to an absolute monarch and dictator, like the monarchs of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar. Iran was transformed overnight from a democratic constitutional monarchy into a dictatorship.

Today, a militarily imposed oil embargo against Iran is not possible like it was in the early 1950s. Instead London and Washington use the language of righteousness and hide behind false pretexts about Iranian nuclear weapons. Like in the 1950s, the oil embargo against Iran is tied to regime change. Yet, there are also broader objectives that go beyond the boundaries of Iran tied to the Washington’s project to impose an oil embargo against the Iranians.

The European Union and Iranian Oil Sales

Iran’s largest customer for oil is the People’s Republic of China. According to the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), which was created after the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo as the strategic wing of the Western Bloc’s Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Iran exports 543,000 oil barrels per day to China. Iran’s other large customers are India, Turkey, Japan, and South Korea. India imports 341,000 barrels per day from Iran, Turkey imports 370,000 barrels per day from Iran, Japan imports 251,000 barrels per day from Iran, and South Korea imports 239,000 barrels per day from Iran.

According to the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum the European Union only accounts for 18% of Iranian oil exports, which means less than one-fifth of Iranian oil sales. Only “collectively” is the European Union the second largest customer of Iran. All the E.U. countries together import 510,000 barrels per day from Iran. This collective rank that all Iranian oil importing E.U. countries have together is being highlighted by those that want to emphasize the effectiveness of the E.U. oil embargo against Iran.

U.S. troops quietly surge into Middle East

San Francisco Chronicle
David S. Cloud

The Pentagon has quietly shifted combat troops and warships to the Middle East after the top American commander in the region warned that he needed additional forces to deal with Iran and other potential threats, U.S. officials said.

Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, who heads U.S. Central Command, won White House approval for the deployments late last year after talks with the government in Baghdad broke down over keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, but the extent of the Pentagon moves is only now becoming clear.

Officials said the deployments are not meant to suggest a buildup to war, but rather are intended as a quick-reaction and contingency force in case a military crisis erupts in the standoff with Tehran over its suspected nuclear weapons program.

The Pentagon has stationed nearly 15,000 troops in Kuwait, adding to a small contingent already there. The new units include two Army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit - a substantial increase in combat power after nearly a decade in which Kuwait chiefly served as a staging area for supplies and personnel heading to Iraq.

The Pentagon also has decided to keep two aircraft carriers and their strike groups in the region.

Earlier this week, the American carrier Carl Vinson joined the carrier Stennis in the Arabian Sea, giving commanders major naval and air assets in case Iran carries out its recent threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint in the Persian Gulf, where one-fifth of the world's oil shipments passes.

Deployment of thousands of U.S. troops in Israel, a start of war against Iran?

Aletho News
DINA AL-SHIBEEB

As the Middle East roils in crisis when a U.S. aircraft carrier entered a zone near the world’s most important choke point for oil shipments, the Strait of Hormuz, also an offshore region that Iran threatened to close if the United States raises sanctions against the Islamic Republic, the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops in Israel has raised speculations of an imminent war.

On December 20, the Jerusalem Post newspaper reported Lt.-Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the U.S.’s Third Air Force based in Germany, as saying that there will be a deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel.

An Egypt-based military expert, major general Jamal Mathloum, said that “there is a military strategic cooperation between the U.S. and Israel since the 1980s and there is definitely mutual understanding,” adding that the U.S. troops deployment might not necessarily mean a direct signal of war, but could be read as Israel and U.S. readiness in case of a conflict arising in the region.

“There is already a U.S. radar station in southern Israel, and might as well contain from 500 to 700 American soldier operating there,” Mathloum said.
But for Abdulaziz Sager, chairman and founder of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, the deployment of U.S. troops in Israel is “definitely to send a clear signal to Iran.”

Sager said that there is a U.S.-Israel defense agreement that makes defending the Jewish state an obligation to the United States. In addition to that, U.S. 

President Barack Obama said in his last AIPAC meeting that the United States does not rule out any option against Iran if it had to.

According to debka.com, an Israeli website that provides political and security analysis, about 9,000 U.S. soldiers have already arrived in Israel.

But Mathloum said this figure remains insignificant of compared to the more than 100,000 American soldiers dispersed in 1,000 U.S. bases worldwide.

Lt.-Gen. Gorenc’s announcement came as he was visiting Israel to finalize plans for the upcoming drill, which is considered to be unprecedented in its size.

There will also be an establishment of U.S. command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany – with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a large-scale conflict in the Middle East, the newspaper reported.

But according to Elia Henna, a Lebanon-based expert in military issues, the deployment of 9,000 U.S. troops in Israel goes back to the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and to further the U.S. presence in the region and not to leave the “Arab field” open to further Iranian influence.

Asked on why the United States did not increase its troops numbers in its military bases in the Arab Gulf, Henna said that both countries [Israel and United States.] have far more compatible militaries and are bound with military agreements and that the United States has more freedom in Israel.

“Israel does not mind even if one million U.S. soldiers to be deployed in the Jewish state,” he added. Despite U.S.-Israel furthering their combative cooperation in light of the crisis looming around Iran, the Islamic Republic remains unyielding.

On Sunday, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Fereydoun, Abbasi Davani, reportedly said that Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facility will go on stream soon.

Davani said that the Fordow nuclear enrichment plant will be operational in the near future and that around 20 percent, 3.5 percent and four percent enriched uranium can be produced at the site.

“There is no third party to verify about the site [Fordow] and truth about the announcement,” said Sager, adding “they can say all they want to say but there is no confirmation or verification.”

Asked about the nature of the attack against Iran if there will be one, Sager said there will be a surgical and not a complete one since Iran cannot afford to, but it will be leaving the Gulf Arab or the surrounding region of Iran in dire environmental consequence.

Sanctions and internal domestic change can potentially bring about a change in Iran’s polices, he said.