As is often the case, US military planners seem intent on fighting their previous war - not their next one. Gates' emphasis on assymetric warfare is horribly wrong.

The world economy is now globalised. Rather than being segmented into mostly independent sections, it is a single organism. For America's opponents to damage America, they can now strike at the arteries and capillaries of this organism.

The most vulnerable are shipping lanes. The US is now massively reliant on Asia for economic prosperity, and Asia is massively dependent on raw materials delivered along these trade arteries. That is why countries like China and Japan are investing massively in their navies.

If Iran were to close shipping through the Gulf of Hormuz - as it has threatened to do in the event of conflict - the results, according to the Heritage Foundation, would be devastating. If Iran disrupted oil supplies for two quarters, in the US this "would result in roughly 1 million fewer jobs one year after the strait was blocked". If Iran were able to enforce the blockade with nuclear weapons, the situation would of course become far less recoverable.

But this would be only the tip of the iceberg. China's political stability relies on the government's ability to oversee constant job-creation. This relies on ever-greater exports to the US. In the above scenario, millions of Chinese would lose their jobs due to a contraction in US demand for Chinese imports, creating an unprecedented crisis, one that would probably involve state violence on a huge scale - Tiananmen many times over. It would create a credit crunch in the US, which is heavily dependent on borrowing from China, and begin a vicious circle of economic shrinkage even on top of the tight oil supplies.

This is why Dick Cheney is so hawkish towards Iran. Talking at the Iranians is not going to dissuade them from securing a stranglehold on the global economy and by extension, the US. Gates seems oblivious to this danger.

I think you are dead on about "fighting the last war" but how do you propose that the Army police shipping lanes?

The logical conclusion -- alluded to, but not forthrightly put in GreenwichJ's argument -- is that the response to Iran's threat to shipping lanes[read: the flow of Gulf oil] is an invasion of Iran...

I can't fault G's thinking on the potential fallout. What I disagree with is the probaility of Iran successfully pursuing such a strategy. I was in that area of the world[aboard a U.S. naval warship] last time Iran tried to shut down Gulf shipping['87 - '88]. Iran's efforts were more that adequately countered by the U.S. Navy[along with allied navies -- the British & Australians were there with us].

There may be good reasons for an invasion of Iran, and that would require land warfare. But protecting the free flow of Gulf oil does not require land warfare the likes of which GreenwichJ argues may be necessary...

Good thing there relly aren't any good reasons for invading Iran. But then again, there weren't any good reasons for invading Iraq either.

We'd end up in the same kind of fight as in Iraq -- after an initial military victory over conventional forces, we'd be stuck in a protracted fight against an intractable insurgency... So, supposing Iran needs invading, Gates's vision is still correct

For land warfare, asymmetric thinking is the way to go. Part of our problem is that we haven't been doing a good job of it.

Relax, dude. We've got the shipping lanes covered. If Iran tries to close the SoH (and I know a little something of their capabilities in that area), we will reopen it, with the support of the rest of the western world, and probably the majority of Arab states as well, none of whom would enjoy seeing Iran with a stranglehold on global oil. It would be a nasty little fight, but they couldn't hold the SoH closed for long. ;-)

1-We should, as a country, print our own $, not rely on the Fed Reserve. We can get rid of our debt that way. 2-Look at http://www.ae911truth.org & <link> then ask your congressmen, why no investigations? We should also be asking people running for president, and hope they don't tazer us for exercising our right to free speech!

I'm aware that what I wrote up the top might sound a little alarmist. As things stand, I have no doubts whatsoever of the US navy's ability to reopen the Hormuz Strait should Iran try to close it. The economic consequences of a brief disruption would be unpleasant, but perhaps not worth thousands of US casualties.

But as things stand, Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

When it does, it will be able to close the Strait and prevent it being reopened. Iran has acquired numerous technologies to realise this, including what it says is the world's fastest torpedo and Silkworm antishipping missiles. It might also have bought some Sunburn missiles from Ukraine, against which there is no known defence. Add nuclear warheads to this arsenal, and the ability of the US to dominate the Gulf will disappear.

We (the US, NATO, the EU) would certainly be able to defeat the Iranian Navy if it tried to close the strait. But first lets try and think about why Iran would do that in the first place - it would be more or less asking to have its navy wiped out. I highly doubt Iran would seriously attempt such a thing, even with Nuclear weapons. Iran does not particularly enjoy its pariah status, and is working to try and establish more lasting ties with local nations in the wake of Iraq, and is probably not going to rock the boat more than is in its interest.

As for how we would defeat the navy... All the talk about Sunburn's and the like ignores the fact that we have an insurmountable Submarine and Air presence in the persian gulf. Our attack submarines are more advanced than anything out there, and would render their larger ships sitting ducks. Air superiority would not come without a price, but it would certainly be achievable, and their ships would again be left out in the cold.

this is interesting. A little missing piece of history I was unaware of...

<link>

Based on the majority of Iranian harassments against US interests over decades, I believe they are fully aware of their own capabilities and limitations as well as most of our own. It is highly doubtful they would attempt to block the SoH using their surface fleet, should they decide to do so. Choosing instead more "safer" routes to discourage merchant shipping, the Iranians would mine the Gulf and use direct attacks against merchant ships by primarily land launched systems or small craft. Iran would avoid open confrontation with the USN, and, de-mining is perhaps the least favorite mission of the Navy, having been identified as one of our weaker points by the higher ups.

The Persian Gulf is one of the last places I'd want to take a submarine (or a carrier). It's shallow, noisy, small, close to Iran, and it currents lend itself well to diesel boat operations. Our subs excel at deep water ops were most diesel boats are completely outclassed in nearly every regard. The closer to shore (particularly a Iran's own shore) the fighting gets the more rapidly our advantages disappear.

Rocket torpedoes and supersonic missiles are, imho, hyped. With the range and speed of "regular" torpedoes, it is doubtful that any large surface combatant will outrun one (when fired appropriately, of course)

While the attributes of many anti-shipping missiles are acknowledged, relying on point defense systems is the wrong thinking from the get go. The proper defense against any anti-ship missile, supersonic or not, includes 1) don't get spotted, and 2) find his ship/plane/launcher and blow it up. A well executed missile strike against a surface ship with any missile, particularly sea skimming, has a high probability for success. If the missile is in the air you're already behind the ball.

(there are of course other measures against anti-shipping missiles besides guns and missiles as well...)

I believe your dead on about nukes, but I don't think operating inside the Gulf is a good idea even without them.

It is rather alarmist. Just because a country might have the ability to do a thing, the consequences of doing so in this case would far outweigh any possible benefit from doing so. Remember your realist political theory. We're all essentially rational, self-interested states at the end of the day.

The Silkworm is really not that big a deal. Iraq had Seersuckers and that's essentially the same thing. The Sunburn is a nasty and brilliant missile, but its flight profile would hinder its effectiveness in the Gulf, and render it almost useless in the SoH, which narrows to 25 NM at points. Besides, it isn't that we have no known defense against them, just no unclassified defense. We do have a few tricks we can't talk about. Loose lips sink ships, and all that rot. ;-)

Not that I'm selling the missile short. Its design is genius and its capabilities are the stuff of nightmares to an Aegis ship, but we're hardly helpless kittens.

And I have to point out that our increasingly belligerent foreign policy is backing Iran into a corner from which they are far more likely to do something rash like what you describe. Remember that Ahmanijad only got elected after we declared them to be the Axis of Evil and conquered two nations right on their borders. Things were headed in the right direction before that. Hard to accept that we're actually responsible for setting the cause of democracy back at least a few decades in that country, but it is indeed so. I'd prefer we didn't make things worse through our fear, hamhandedness and arrogance.

And what if they load a nuclear warhead onto one of those Sunburns and fire it at a US carrier group?

As you say, perhaps new technology would prevent it scoring a direct hit. But a nuclear explosion even half a mile away would (I'm guessing) seriously disrupt the group's operational ability.

And remember, it would do so while inflicting no collateral damage whatsoever.

I don't think we've backed the Iranians into a corner. I think they've realised they are incredibly close to becoming a superpower in their own right, and will keep talking to us and offering to negotiate until they've developed the tools they need.

You don't understand how a Sunburn works. There are reasons it's such an effective anti-ship missileand the geography and infrastructure of the Gulf negate many of them. It has to do with flight profile and range. And the Gulf itself is a good deal smaller than you think. A nuclear weapon detonated anywhere there would have side effects for the countries involved. Nearby oil platforms (and there are always some nearby) would suffer heavy damage, not to mention radiation contamination ashore. And if four or five SSBNs were then to surface and launch a retaliatory strike, that would easily take the place of collateral damage. Even losing an entire carrier strike group wouldn't be the end of U.S. presence in the Gulf, let alone the end of America. And our retaliation could easily include ICBMs, which Iran knows perfectly well. You also forget that Saudi Arabia will be just as upset as we will if Iran attempts to close the SoH. They get their oil out by that road, too. Will Iran risk a war with the Arab states? Probably not, and not soon, in any event.

Besides, a concealed nuclear weapon aboard a fishing dhow or delivered via FAC/FIAC tactics would be infinitely more cost effective than refitting every Combattante and Vosper in Iran's fleet to carry the SSN-22. Have you ever seen a Sunburn canister up close? I saw them when I went to Vladivostok. They're enormous! Not an inconspicuous weapon by any means. They'd be visible to our satellites and tracked.

Perhaps you're right that Iran is striving for nuclear power status, and not merely a peaceful source of energy. Who can blame them? Looking at North Korea, India and Pakistan, then looking at Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd conclude that nuclear status means immunity from invasion while the lack thereof invites it. And if Iran does want to become the major player in the Gulf, doesn't that make engagement that much more vital? Where are the offers of a light-water reactor, like we've (twice) agreed to give North Korea? Where are the trade agreements like we gave China? Foreign policy does not consist solely of sticks, after all. Carrots are just as important, and in many ways, far more effective in the long run. Sticks should be used after carrots fail.

Also, looking back at Iran before we decided that they were evil and surrounded them with our military, they were eager to engage with the West and modernize their culture. Student movements were flourishing and chipping away at the foundations of the theocratic half of Iran's government. All we had to do to nudge Iran towards Western-style democracy was... nothing. They were headed there without our help. Bush sacrificed that ideal situation for a mere soundbite, perhaps not even realizing the implications of what he was saying. I see Ahmadinejad as the direct result of our foreign policy. He never could have gotten elected without popular fear of the U.S. as his ally, and I can't see his rule lasting much beyond our threat of invasion.

I suppose that I, too, could spend my days dreaming up nightmare scenarios and then reacting in the real world as if they were inevitable. Like an army of Iranian Killbots programmed to conquer the entire Middle East. What about the Killbots? However, I'd prefer to realize that the Iranians are people, that they desire many of the things that the rest of us do and that they react much like the rest of humanity does when threatened. I might also remember that Iran is a sovereign nation with the right to self-determination, and that just because someone wants something that we might not want them to have, doesn't necessarily make them out to get us. At some future time, they might attack us. I might personally die in that attack, or in the war that follows. Nevertheless, I cannot condone hostile action against Iran right now. On every level, the urge to preemptive action is irrational and driven by fear. There are still so many options we haven't entertained, and others yet that we refuse to entertain, merely because statecraft and statesmanship seems to be dirty words under this Administration.