U.S. Navy Office of Naval Intelligence Worldwide Threat to Shipping (WTS) Report, 27 December 2023 - 24 January 2024

U.S. Navy Office of Naval ... by lawofsea

"Iran confirms new missile test, says it does not violate nuclear deal"

UN Resolution 2231 section dealing with ballistic missiles found here. You need to look at paragraph 3 of Annex B, which reads in pertinent part:

3. Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.
4. All States may participate in and permit the activities described below provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis
to permit such activity:
(a) the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or
by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to or from Iran, or
for the use in or benefit of Iran, and whether or not originating in their
territories, of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set
out in S/2015/546 and of any items, materials, equipment, goods and
technology that the State determines could contribute to the development
of nuclear weapon delivery systems; and
(b) the provision to Iran of any technology or technical assistance or
training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or other services,
and the transfer of financial resources or services, or Iran’s acquisition of
an interest in any commercial activity in another State, related to the
supply, sale, transfer, manufacture or use of the items, materials,
equipment, goods and technology described in subparagraph a of this
paragraph or related to the activities described in paragraph 3.

provided that in the event of an approval by the Security Council: (a) the contract for delivery of such items or assistance include appropriate end-user guarantees; and (b) Iran commit not to use such items for development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.(emphasis added)

Which the UN says means:

Paragraph 3 of Annex B of resolution 2231 (2015) calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.

Effective to 2023 or maybe earlier.

So, with that as background, here's the Reuters report (from whence the post header), "Iran confirms new missile test, says it does not violate nuclear deal":

Iran's defense minister said on Wednesday it had tested a new missile but this did not breach the Islamic Republic's nuclear accord with world powers or a U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the pact.

Iran has test-fired several ballistic missiles since the nuclear deal in 2015, but the latest test was the first during U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. Trump said in his election campaign that he would stop Iran's missile program.

"The recent test was in line with our plans and we will not allow foreigners to interfere in our defense affairs," Defence Minister Hossein Dehghan told Tasnim news agency. "The test did not violate the nuclear deal or (U.N.) Resolution 2231."

A U.S. official said on Monday that Iran test-launched a medium-range ballistic missile on Sunday and it exploded after traveling 630 miles (1,010 km).

The Security Council held an emergency meeting on Tuesday and recommended the matter of the missile testing be studied at committee level. The new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, called the test "unacceptable".

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Tuesday that Tehran would never use its ballistic missiles to attack another country.

Hmmm. The question facing the UN is whether the missile that was fired was "nuclear capable" - if so, that's a clear violation of Resolution 2231, despite Iran's preemptive denial of that fact. Note that Resolution does not even come close to suggesting that "nuclear capability" refers somehow to the current capacity of Iran to load a nuclear warhead onto such missile. I would assert that if anyone - Russia, US, China, North Korea, Pakistan or others has a nuke that could fit the missile now or if Iran could, with or without the help of some other rogue state could develop that technology, Iran is in violation of the Resolution.

Which leads to question number 2, does Iran's assertion that its missile is, essentially, "for defensive purposes only" matter? No, that's not part of the Resolution as I read it.

Question 3: What can the UN or others do about this violation? Why, it's supposed to trigger a "snapback" of the sanctions lifted by the nuclear deal with Iran, according to this:

Under a council resolution that endorsed the historic nuclear deal with Iran, Tehran is barred from developing missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads.
Any violation of that resolution could trigger a snapback of sanctions that were lifted under the nuclear agreement, opening up the Iranian economy to investment and opportunities.

Now, who is going to move to reinstate the sanctions? And how do you enforce it?

Fun with Iran: "Destroyer USS Mahan Fires Warning Shots in Standoff with Iranian Forces"

Sam LaGrone at USNI News Destroyer USS Mahan Fires Warning Shots in Standoff with Iranian Forces:

The crew of the guided-missile destroyer USS Mahan (DDG-72) fired three warning shots to ward off four armed attack boats coming at the ship at high speed, a defense official confirmed to USNI News on Monday.

On Sunday, Mahan was transiting the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf when the four Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy fast inshore attack craft (FIAC) came at the destroyer at a high rate of speed with their crew-served weapons manned, the official told USNI News.

After several attempts to warn off the boars with radio communications, siren and the ship’s whistle the boats came within 900 yards of the guided missile destroyer before the crew fired three warning shots from one of the ships .50 caliber guns.

After the shots were fired, the boats broke off.

Ah, did someone suggest that "peace in our time" was on hand due to the Obama administration's deal with Iran?

Fun with Iran: Iran "Naval Ambitions"

I think we've covered Iran's desire to control the flow of oil from the Middle East to the world before, but there is an interesting piece at Foreign Affairs by Yoel Guzansky, Iran's Growing Naval Ambitions: Why It Wants Naval Bases in Syria and Yemen that

In late November, Iran made an unusual announcement: it said it was planning to build naval bases in Syria and Yemen, which, as a state-run paper later posited, “could be ten times more efficient than nuclear power.” Although Iran has long striven to establish itself as a leading regional power, and naval outposts have been key to reaching that goal, this was the first time Tehran officially declared its intentions to build such bases beyond its own borders.

That "building bases" part is partially true because there was that time the Greeks beat the expansionist Persians back a couple of thousand years ago.

Ironic, I suppose that it was Greek sea power that played a key role in those Persian defeats, as it appears sea power is back in the Persian - uh- Iranian Islamic Republic Theocracy/Dictatorship vocabulary.

In any event, Mr. Guzansky notes:

The two bases would fit into Iran’s larger plan to expand its reach both regionally and beyond. Tehran is in the process of building up its presence along the coasts of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, a policy that it also announced in November. “We are building two naval zones and three naval bases on the Makran coasts,” saidRear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, commander of the Iranian navy, at a press conference in Tehran. “This is in line with our policy of making a return to the sea.” Sayyari highlighted plans to equip the Iranian navy with homegrown surface-to-surface missiles, sea-based drones, and intercept radars.

Sayyari also made mention, and not for the first time, of Iran’s goals outside its regional waters. “Beyond a doubt,” he said, “our naval fleets will, in the near future, circle Africa and cross the Atlantic.” He referred to the waters of East Asia as well. To further this goal, Iran is conducting visits to and joint naval exercises with countries in Africa and Asia. In May 2013, Iran’s navy paid a visit to the Chinese port of Zhangjiagang, and later that year, it sent two warships and a submarine to Colombo, Sri Lanka. In 2014, China reciprocated by sending, for the first time, two ships to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas to conduct joint naval exercises, ostensibly focused on antipiracy operations. And in January of this year, Tehran dispatched an Iranian navy destroyer to the Indian port of Visakhapatnam, also to conduct joint naval drills.

See also Missile Attacks Off Yemen and the Iran- Saudi Proxy War for Oil Shipping Chokepoints:

Iran would like to control the Saudi outflow of oil. It can do so by shutting down Saudi access through the Strait of Hormuz except that the Saudi's can also export oil from their west coast on the Red Sea and ship it through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. If the Iranian surrogate Houthis can gain control of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait then Iran could, effectively, throttle Saudi oil flow.

Not to mention controlling much of the oil flow to Europe and, if necessary, to the Far East. Useful bargaining chip, that oil/gas flow, as Russia has found out in its dealing with Western Europe.

Mr. Guzansky makes other excellent points:

A base in Syria, if it ever materializes, would stretch Iran's naval arm to the Mediterranean and strengthen the Iranian military presence near Europe’s shores. It would also help Tehran’s allies in Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria—Hezbollah, Hamas, and the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, respectively. A naval base in Syria would enable Iran to transport regular supplies and provide other assistance to Hezbollah without being dependent on overland convoys or aerial transport through Iraq or Turkey. The base would also make Iran less dependent on Sudan. Although Sudan has long served as a port of entry for Iranian weapons into the Mediterranean and Africa, Tehran’s African ally has been changing its policy in recent years and has moved closer to wealthy Saudi Arabia.
***
If left unchecked, Iran could potentially develop the capacity to threaten crucial shipping lanes in the Caspian Sea and the Indian Ocean. As a result, Iran’s recent announcements of its plans to expand its regional presence to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean could spur cooperation between Israel, which is also seeking to curb Iranian influence, and the Arab world. For its part, the United States under President Barack Obama has shied away from confrontation with Iran in almost all instances. The U.S. Navy has chosen not to counter the increasing provocations in the Persian Gulf by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy. As of September 2016, there had been 31 “unsafe encounters” with Iranian vessels in the Persian Gulf, up from 23 in 2015, according to the U.S. Navy. The lack of action is costing Washington its credibility as a counterforce to Tehran.

Of course, while Iran plots its destruction of Israel and its positioning to threaten Europe, the world's energy picture keeps moving which may damage Iran's ability to pay for a meaningful naval expansion. Though with sufficient anti-ship cruise missiles, it seems easier for a land power to push sea forces further out to sea.

Europe is not without options for example

Norway is the world's third largest exporter of oil and gas after Saudi Arabia and Russia. In 2012, it accounted for about 31% of all the EU's natural gas imports and 11% of its crude oil imports. Norway also produces a large amount of hydroelectric power which can be exported to the EU in greater quantities if new grid connections are built.

There are several reasons for the "greening" of Germany, not the least of which would seem to be to free it from the clutches of either Russia or the Middle East powers.

Once again, the U.S. domestic production of oil and gas is vital to U.S. interests - see OPEC Fights U.S. Shale Oil, U.S. Shale Oil Hangs in There:

The U.S., according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration seems to be sitting pretty on shale:

Does the United States have abundant shale resources?
Yes, the United States has access to significant shale resources. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2014, EIA estimated that the United States has approximately 610 Tcf of technically recoverable shale natural gas resources and 59 billion barrels of technically recoverable tight oil resources. As a result, the United States is ranked second globally after Russia in shale oil resources and is ranked fourth globally after China, Argentina and Algeria in shale natural gas resources.

Nhanks to Mr. Obama, we now seem to be "warehousing" areas of potential development.

You might want to look at National Energy Security Issue: Effects of Cheap Oil

Suppose, for example, Russia decides to cut off natural gas supplies to Europe beginning in late 2016 using that gas as an economic weapon to force the nations dependent on Russian gas to accept Russian claims in the Ukraine or the Baltic States. One way for the West to resist this pressure is to have some assurance that the U.S. and its allies will be able to set into motion a stream of LNG ships carrying gas to replace that of the Russians, ameliorating the gas situation for those affected states. In addition to LNG shipping, a force of air and naval escorts protecting that LNG stream at sea might be required to prevent interference with the flow of gas in competition with that of the Russians.

Or, suppose the Chinese interfere with the flow of gas and oil through the South China Sea sea lanes to Taiwan,South Korea and Japan. Can the U.S. and Canada help mitigate the harm while alternative sea lanes that avoid the South China Sea are developed? Who will protect those shipments and how?

Or, what if Iran or someone else takes the big step of managing to destroy the Saudi oil production - say through using nuclear weapons - can the U.S. and non-Middle East producers step up and provide at least minimal supplies to the world now depending on Middle East oil?

Of course, speaking of naval power, all those shipping lanes would require adequate naval forces to protect them from interruption. Another reason to increase the size of the U.S. and allied naval forces.

UPDATE: Some people find Iran's suggested foreign port concept a "mirage":

Iran is doing enough damage in the Middle East through unconventional methods without requiring a robust navy. That is why an idea floated by a key Iranian military leader to build naval bases in Yemen and Syria makes absolutely no sense.

Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of Iran’s armed forces general staff, suggested last month that Tehran was interested in, “at some point,” establishing naval bases in Yemen and Syria. While such a move would reflect the Islamic Republic’s goal of dominating the region, constructing highly visible and defensible bases far from Iranian shores is not realistic.

I agree that "realism" and Iran's stated goals often vary widely.

Fun with Iran: "US intercepts multiple shipments of Iranian weapons going to Houthis in Yemen"

CNN reports US intercepts multiple shipments of Iranian weapons going to Houthis in Yemen

American warships have intercepted five shipments of weaponry to the Houthis in Yemen from Iran in the past year and a half, according to US Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan, who is in charge of American naval operations in the Middle East.

The first intercepted shipment was in April 2015 and since then, American ships have intercepted an additional four shipments, Donegan said.
The shipments included thousands of AK-47 automatic rifles, as well as anti-tank missiles and sniper rifles...

You know in case you were wondering about claims that Iran was backing the Houthis. Or about a proxy war for control of the entrance to the Red Sea at Bab el Mandeb.

The Iran Deal: Sanctions Lifted with Threat of More Sanctions

So there is an Iran nuke deal

Iran and world powers capped a decade-long dispute by reaching a historic deal early Tuesday for Tehran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for the easing of economic sanctions.

The Islamic republic has been negotiating with the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China for years, with diplomats most recently extending numerous deadlines in hopes of arriving at a workable and comprehensive plan.

President Barack Obama said the deal with Tehran ensures that "every pathway to a nuclear weapon" had been cut off.

"We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region," he said in an early-morning statement which — in a rare move — was carried on Iranian television.

Really?

Well, assume it's true. What's the downside to Iran if it cheats?

Obama said that if Iran violates the terms of the agreement, sanctions will be snapped back into place.

The deal is "not built on trust," he explained. "It is built on verification."

Oh my, more sanctions! I wonder if a strongly worded letter will accompany them?

And the sanctions?

The agreement includes the provision of a "snap back" mechanism that could lead to the reinstatement of sanctions within 65 days if Iran violates the terms of the deal, according to officials.

65 days is "snap back?"

Wow. No threat of immediate laying waste the countryside around Iran's nuke facilities and turning deserts into sheets of glass?

Alleged actual terms here.

Key phrase:

Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.

Personally I would have made a violation of that provision an act of war and opened up all kinds of possibilities.

But that's just me.

The President issues his own threat about this deal, Obama threatens to veto any attempt to block Iranian nuclear deal. I guess that's a "red line" then, isn't it?

Must be a good deal, then.

Yemen: Iran v. Saudi Arabia? Shia v. Sunni? Oh, By the way, It's a mess . . .

Nice article on The Economist website that you should read in its entirety (may require free registration), Instability in Yemen: The Houthis aim the sword:

Yemen's Houthi rebels appear to be moving in for the kill against the staggering government of President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

Can't tell the players without a scorecard?

The Houthis (who prefer to call themselves Ansar Allah, or the Partisans of God) were operating alongside allies of the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was toppled in 2011; together they form the so-called “Popular Committees”, militias that control a growing chunk of northern Yemen.

The rolling coup has been a long time gathering. A once-marginalised movement emerging from the Zaydi branch of Shia Islam, whose devotees make up about 40% of Yemen's population, the Houthis fought against the army in the northern province of Saada between 2004 and 2010.
***
The turmoil in Yemen is borne of long-standing internal rivalries and the country’s endemic instability. But America and especially Saudi Arabia will see in the Houthis a dangerous extension of Iran’s power. Iran already provides military help to the governments of Iraq and Syria against Sunni insurgents, among them the jihadists of Islamic State, and is the power behind Lebanon’s Hizbullah militia. Iranian officials, for their part, seem more than happy to feed Saudi fears.***

Nice closing sentence:

The consequences of instability in Yemen extend far beyond its borders.

So, the answer is? See the nearby cartoon.

The War with Iran: Kenya Convicts Iranian Bomb Plotters

VOA reports Kenyan Court Convicts Two Iranians of Planning Attacks:

A Kenyan court has found two Iranians guilty of possessing explosives,

allegedly for use in bomb attacks on Western and Israeli targets.

Ahmad Mohammed and Sayed Mousavi were arrested in June 2012 and charged with possessing 15 kilograms of the explosive RDX.
***
In issuing Thursday's judgement, Magistrate Kiarie Waweru praised the actions of the police in arresting the men and stopping a potential "catastrophe.".

More from the AP here:

Iranian agents are suspected in attacks or thwarted attacks around the globe in recent years, including in Azerbaijan, Thailand and India. Most of the plots had connections to Israeli targets.

Kenyan anti-terror officials said the Iranians are members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, an elite and secretive unit.

Asymmetric warfare is still war.

Iran: Grand Scale Press Puffery

Iranian press releases concerning their military capabilities never cease to amaze - much like the lurid covers of the lamented World Weekly News - the simple absurdity of the puffed up claims is, if nothing else, captivating.

For example, here's a interesting story: PressTV - Iran Navy plans to expand presence near South Pole

Iran’s Navy has launched plans to extend its presence in the international waters near the South Pole, Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari says.

Iran wants to visit the polar bears!

“We have the capability to hoist Iran’s flags in different regions from the North Pole to the South Pole and we are preparing plans for presence near the South Pole,” Sayyari said on Friday.

Well, since the South Pole sits on top of a rather large land mass, covered with ice 2700 meters (9000 ft) deep, the Iranian Navy must have some really special ships.

If he means Iran has ships that can sail off the coast of Antarctica, so do the clowns of Whale Wars, and pretty much every other sea-going county in the world. All of which points out how modest these plans are, I suppose. Might as well announce plans to go to the grocery store. As far as I can tell, there is no one standing in their way.

The real question is why the Iranians would want to make the effort to go to polar regions. For that, I have no answer, unless it's "because they are there."

Of course, the Iranians also plan to expand their force to provide protection for the U.S. coast by patrolling the Atlantic, though they seem to couch it in different terms:

Earlier this month, Sayyari said Iran aims to put warships in international waters off the U.S. coast "within the next few years." He also said Iran's navy would be "present anywhere in international waters in order to safeguard the Islamic Republic's interests."

Portions of the Iranian Navy

We know it is "peaceful" because they keep reassuring us that is the case:

Tehran has repeatedly clarified that its military might is merely based on the nation's defense doctrine of deterrence and poses no threat to other countries.

So, if they are not a threat, they must be planning to put a force off our coast in international waters to lend us a hand in patrolling the sea lanes of commerce to keep them open for free commerce between nations of good will . . . .

The Iranian Islamic Revolution Guard Guard Corps Navy also likes to provide tales of their heroic prowess to gullible minds. Here's an example of a joint press release from the IRGCN itself:

Iran keeps a watchful eye on naval moves of the enemies in the region and is fully informed of all their military actions due to its intelligence supremacy over the enemies, a senior commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps said.

"We have good intelligence and security supremacy over enemies' moves in the Persian Gulf given our modern and advanced equipments, and our operational and intelligence patrols deep into the Persian Gulf have increased the capability," Commander of the IRGC's Second Naval Zone General Ali Razmjou told reporters in Iran's Southern port city of Bushehr.

He said that the Persian Gulf has become "an unconquerable stronghold" for Iran, but at the same time noted that Iran's military capabilities are only meant to promote the country's deterrent power.

Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari had also earlier this week stressed Iran's intelligence supremacy over US moves in the region, and noted that Iran is well informed of the details of the US naval moves in the region.

Do they know about this?

"We are well aware of the exact number and the position of the US surface vessels, aircrafts, submarines and minesweeping warships in the region," Sayyari underscored on Friday.

You know, for a peace loving country the Iranians seem to have lots of "enemies."

"Intelligence supremacy." Snort.

Some Countries Offering "Insurance" Money for Evading the Iranian Sanctions

Short report from PennEnergy on a couple of countries offering "insurance" money to support tankers which evade economic sanctions against Iran at India offers $50MM in coverage for Iranian tanker runs:

Indian oil transportation companies will be able to receive some limited coverage from the government for oil tankers making trips to Iran, according to Reuters. The recent sanctions imposed against Iran for its continuing efforts to develop its nuclear program, and as many Western nations fear nuclear weapons, have largely prevented Indian oil companies from finding insurance for their oil ships.
***
In response, the Indian government has offered to insure as much as $50 million for any "Indian flag carriers" traveling to Iran. This amount falls well short of the actual liability incurred by oil tankers on any given trip, but it comes to more than six times as much as the Japanese government has offered its companies, illustrating India's interest in continuing the flow of Iranian oil.

Insurance Insight provides some background:

The concern for Asian nations such as India, China and Japan has been that their ships, which are highly dependent on the International Group of Protection & Indemnity Clubs and its reinsurance programme, will be unable to sail if they cannot obtain cover.

Another Insurance Insight report on limitations placed by Japanese insurers on tankers carrying Iranian crude:

Japanese oil buyers will be forced to coordinate schedules after insurers warned they will cover only one tanker transporting Iranian oil at a time after the 1 July sanctions deadline.
***
According to Reuters, the three insurers together can provide only up to ¥30bn ($370m) at one time in hull and machinery cover, which protects vessels against physical damage, without relying on the European reinsurance market to hedge the risk.

This is enough to cover insurance for only one tanker travelling in the Gulf with Iranian crude oil, Insurance Insight understands.

So, India and Japan as "sanction busters?"

Earlier report here, where China is added to the list of Iranian oil carriers.

Iran Media Hype: "US uses piracy as excuse to control energy passage: Iran Navy official"

Iranian Aircraft Carrier "The Bob"

In the world of information warfare, the Iranians follow the old Avis slogan of "We Try Harder!" Hype is the polite word for most of their efforts.

Here's the latest gem from Iran's PressTV (all the misspellings are PressTV's, the highlight is mine): "US uses piracy as excuse to control energy passage: Iran Navy official":

The issue of piracy has provided the US with a pretext to maintain its presence in the strategic region of the Gulf of Aden and Bab al-Mandab Strait, Captain Khordad Hakimi told reporters on Sunday, IRNA reported.

Given the fact that some 65 and 35 percent of energy demanded by Europe and the US respectively passes through this region, the United States finds it necessary to compete for controlling and dominating the flow of energy, he added.

The commander also pointed out that the US has equipped pirates with weapons and satellite information to justify its presence in the region and thus control the flow of energy.

According to captain Hakimi, more than 20 countries have dispatched their naval forces to the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden, but only Iran, India and Russia carry out independent missions while others work as joint maritime forces led by the US.

Now, let me turn the tables. Let me re-write parts of the "story" placing Iran as the subject:

An American Navy official says Iran uses the issue of piracy in the Gulf of Aden as a pretext to maintain presence in the region with the aim of controlling the flow of energy.

The issue of piracy has provided Iran with a pretext to maintain its presence in the strategic region of the Gulf of Aden and Bab al-Mandab Strait, Captain I.M. Nobody told reporters on Sunday, USNOTNEWS reported.

Given the fact that some 80 percent of energy shipped by Iran passes through this region and is vital to the Iranian economy, Iran asserts it necessary to compete for controlling and dominating the flow of energy, he added.

The commander also pointed out that Iran has equipped pirates with weapons and satellite information to justify its presence in the region and thus control the flow of energy.

According to Captain Nobody, more than 20 countries have dispatched their naval forces to the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden, but only Iran, India and Russia carry out independent missions while others work as joint maritime forces led by the US.

The U.S. and its coalition partners have so far escorted or protected about a zillion ships in the Gulf of Aden, Nobody said, adding that a few of them came under attack by pirates, but were successfully rescued.

In line with international efforts against piracy, the U.S. Navy has been conducting patrols in the Gulf of Aden since the earth cooled in order to safeguard merchant containers and oil tankers owned or leased by the U.S. or other countries.

The Gulf of Aden, which links the Indian Ocean with the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea, is a strategic energy corridor particularly because the Persian Gulf oil is shipped to the West via the Suez Canal.

Despite patrols by Iran and several other countries allied with the West, Somali pirates have hijacked dozens of ships in recent years and have taken in tens of millions of dollars in ransoms.

Gee, that was fun and easy.

When the time comes . . . Mine Iran!

When I was a young naval officer, the gloves finally came off in the protracted war against what was then North Vietnam and we loaded up on various sea mines and took the war to the enemy (meaning those countries supporting NVN by sea) by sowing mines in the harbors of the North. Interdiction, blockade and power projection were all on display in one or two long days of dropping mines into the right place to shut down the North Vietnamese war material machine.

Now, there is at least one voice pointing out that the old favorite of the Iranians - the sea mine - could be used to halt their economy - for example. Commentary: "How to Defeat Iran" by George J. Gilboy:

One such option worthy of consideration: using mines around Iran's naval ports and oil-export terminals. This might create better leverage than a campaign of air strikes—without generating the death and destruction that could give Iran a cause for perpetual grievance. Mining would shut in both the Iranian navy and Iran's oil exports.

Modern U.S. naval mines are not indiscriminate weapons. They have programmable sensor-trigger mechanisms. These mines can be set to arm after a delay for a warning period, select targets based on a ship’s magnetic, pressure and acoustic signature, and they can be neutralized or cleared after a conflict.
***

But mining Iran's naval facilities could degrade Iran's ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz or attack U.S. forces on patrol. Iranian minelayers, submarines and missile-armed surface ships would be trapped in their ports or unable to return to them safely.

Beyond that, mining Iran's oil-export terminals would impose considerable costs on the regime. According to the IMF, oil-export revenues account for more than 20 percent of Iran's $475 billion gross domestic product (GDP). Assuming that 80 percent of oil exports by sea can be halted by mines, and accounting only for lost oil profits, the net impact could be a loss of Iranian GDP equal to $59 billion over one year. This would be the equivalent of reducing Iran's GDP growth from today's 3 percent to around negative 12 percent.

And the impact could be even greater. Iran also imports a large portion of its refined oil products. With imports also interrupted, the total lost GDP could be in the range of $66 billion in one year. In the context of an economy that now suffers from 11 to 13 percent unemployment, this would put intense pressure on an already-divided Iranian society and its rulers.

While the author of the piece is bent on seeing mine warfare as an alternative to other sorts of bombing, missile attacks and more, I am not sure he appreciates the all risks incurred in playing the mine war card.

On the other hand, there may come a time when options have played out, and when that time comes . . . unleash the mines of war!

And standby with all the other tools.

You can gain some information on U.S. sea mines at the Current Mine Inventory section of this larger NavSea web publication, "U.S. Navy Mine Familiarizer." You might note that the pictures above that are not drawing of mines aremine delivery vehicles.

You might also note that Iran doesn't seem to have much of a mine countermeasures force.  You know that just might make mines - asymmetric . . .

Just a thought worth thinking about.

Iran: Increases oil storage capacity on Kharg Island "to foil EU sanctions"

Kharg Island from space (2002)

Well, it's an Iranian Press TV report, so it doesn't need to make sense, I guess, but the logic of "Iran increases oil storage capacity to foil EU sanctions" is elusive to me.

Storing more oil on an island does not seem like way to make sanctions go away - at least in my world:

Managing director of Iranian Oil Terminals Company (IOTC) Seyyed Pirouz Mousavi said on Monday that in order to reduce the impact of the European Union sanctions on Iran’s oil sector, the country has re-commissioned a new storage facility at the Kharg Island oil terminal which can hold as much as one million barrels of crude.

The official added that increasing oil storage capacity will improve oil production and export conditions.

He stated that overhauling the facility has been carried out by domestic contractors and manufacturers, adding that Iran owes 70 percent of the increase in its oil storage capacity during the current Iranian calendar year (ending March 20) to domestic manufacturers.

Mousavi had announced earlier that Iran is capable of storing crude oil in the Persian Gulf for a period of 10-12 days, adding that the figure should hit 30-40 days by building the new storage facilities.

International experts believe that increasing oil storage capacity will improve Iran's position in marketing and selling crude oil.

The country started building its first private oil terminal capable of holding 8 million barrels of oil in the Genaveh port city in January.

The Kharg oil terminal is currently handling about 98 percent of Iran's crude exports and the island has more than 40 storage facilities capable of holding a total amount of 22 million barrels of crude oil.

Iran has also started building four new storage facilities on Kharg Island with the overall capacity of 4 million barrels of crude oil.

Dude, you've just designated a "target rich environment" to the rest of the world.

You won't see  it coming, Seyyed!

Nice little oil storage island you've got there, Seyyed Pirouz Mousavi. Be a shame if anything happened to it. Let's see, how much of your pitiful economy is based on exporting oil?

The U.S. Navy and the Persian Gulf: Ramping up slowly

Iran rattles sabers and the U.S. Navy does a slow ramp up. L.A. Times reports, "Navy says it will add ships to Persian Gulf amid Iran threats":

MHC Coastal Minehunter

The U.S. Navy is upgrading its defensive and offensive capabilities in the Persian Gulf to counter threats from Iran to seize the Strait of Hormuz and block the flow of oil, the chief of naval operations said Friday.

MH-53E Mine-sweeping helicopter

Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert told reporters in Washington that the Navy will add four more mine-sweeping ships and four more CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters with mine-detection capability. The Navy is also sending more underwater unmanned mine-neutralization units to the region.

Cyclone-class Coastal Patrol ship

Greenert said he plans to assign more patrol craft to the gulf, possibly armed with Mark 38 Gatling guns. The same kind of guns might be placed on ships that provide protection for U.S. aircraft carriers or perhaps on the carriers themselves.

U.S. ships have excellent long-range defenses but could use weapons for closer combat, Greenert said.

"It’s like being in an alley with a rifle and maybe what you need is a sawed-off shotgun," he said.

One of the Big Dogs at Sea

The Iranians have boasted that they could "swarm" large U.S. ships with their smaller, fast-moving craft. They have also reportedly been laying mines along their coastline.

My guess, which is exactly that, is that the mine-sweeping stuff is for cleaning up the mess after the "AirSea Battle Concept (ASBC) (modified)"  gets a test run. There is almost no better geographic area to do a little joint air-sea work out.

Or, if required to bust some sort of Iranian attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz in an effort to effect access denial to the Persian Gulf.

This is no rush to war, but a sensible response to the known capabilities of the Iranian forces.

Anti-swarm at sea? SEAD, then kill the swarms from the air. Have we got enought A-10's? See here. Our "swarm" is better than theirs. Or, in a few words:"Find 'em, Blind 'em, Kill 'em" Use all the tools in the box.

Things having to do with Iran

Paying a premium for strategic incoherence | Shadow Government:

Here the administration's incapacity to develop a strategy has had deeply detrimental effects. They don't seem to realize their writing off Iraq has fanned sectarian tensions throughout the middle east, how their inactivity on Syria is further destabilizing Iraq (and vice versa), or their approach to the peace process undercut Palestinians working to build a state and further isolated Israel, can't tell the difference between success in Libya and success in Egypt, what fleeting opportunities now exist to contain Iranian activity and influence in the region, how far -- and even just how -- to support the transition to democracy, whom to partner with, or coordinate their rhetoric about priorities (a pivot to Asia?) with in this once in a century set of changes occurring in the middle east.

Morning Brief: European Union bans Iranian oil:

European ministers elected to phase in the embargo gradually to protect the European economy as it struggles to overcome its debt crisis, but enraged Iranian authorities may foil that plan. Iran's Fars news agency quoted one official as saying Iran should halt oil exports to the EU immediately "so that the price of oil soars and the Europeans ... have trouble."

Why we should take Tehran's threat to cut off the Strait of Hormuz seriously. :

, , , The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), a well-connected Washington defense think tank, just released a new analysis of future military trends around the Persian Gulf. Mark Gunzinger and Chris Dougherty, authors of "Outside-In: Operating from Range to Defeat Iran's Anti-Access and Area-Denial Threats," assert that over the next decade, Iran could acquire military capabilities that would rip up the assumptions that the U.S. military has used for its Persian Gulf planning over the past three decades. The authors conclude that the Pentagon needs to adapt to changing military circumstances in the region by devising new plans and redirecting investments into new capabilities.

From the web page offering up referenced CSBA piece:

Iran has had ample opportunity over the last twenty years to examine the “American way of war” and to deduce that allowing the United States and its allies to mass overwhelming combat power on its borders is a prescription for defeat. Therefore, Iran is pursuing measures to deny the U.S. military access to close-in basing and make traditional U.S. power-projection operations in the Persian Gulf possible only at a prohibitive cost.

Challenges, challenges.

Strait of Hormuz: Triple Carriers (Briefly?)

Let's see now, one carrier leaves the Arabian/Persian Gulf and hangs about the Northern Indian Ocean/Arabian Sea because its replacement is inbound, the replacement has nearly arrived, and a third is lurking about the area.

USS John C. Stennis

Why, that's three of the big beasts in the region. Hmmm. What message does this send to the self-proclaimed "gatekeepers" of the Strait of Hormuz? Well, none if you believe this sort of headline, "U.S. military moves carriers, denies Iran link":

The U.S. military said on Wednesday that a new aircraft carrier strike group had arrived in the Arabian Sea and that another was on its way to the region, but denied any link to recent tensions with Iran and portrayed the movements as routine.

USS Carl Vinson

The shift in the powerful U.S. naval assets comes at a moment of heightened tensions with Iran, which has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz - the world's most important oil shipping lane - if U.S. and EU sanctions over its nuclear program cut off its oil exports.

The U.S. military has said it will halt any blockade of the strategic strait and the top U.S. naval officer acknowledged on Tuesday that preparing for a potential conflict there was something that "keeps me awake at night."

Still, the Pentagon denied any direct link between recent tensions and the movement of aircraft carriers.

USS Abraham Lincoln

"I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that we're somehow (speeding) two carriers over there because we're concerned about what happened, you know, today in Iran. It's just not the case," said Captain John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman.

Military officials said the USS Carl Vinson arrived in the Arabian Sea on Monday to replace the outgoing USS John C. Stennis carrier strike group, which Iran last week warned not to return to the Gulf after departing in late December.

The Stennis was due to return to its home port in San Diego but the Pentagon did not say when that would happen.

Another carrier strike group, led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, concluded a port visit to Thailand on Tuesday and was now in the Indian Ocean. It is on track to join the Vinson in the Central Command area of operations, which begins in the neighboring Arabian Sea.

Why would anyone think there was a message involved?

By the way, carriers do not travel alone. They have escort services.

How Iran Says "Thanks"

The photo is a message from me to the FARS propaganda machine.

BBC News report here;:

According to a New York Times reporter who boarded the captured Al Molai with the US forces, the Iranian fishermen expressed great gratitude for their rescue, with one saying: "It is like you were sent by God."

But Iran's Fars news agency expressed suspicion about the operation, saying it was "like a Hollywood film" which "seems to have been pre-organised". (emphasis added)

"Fars" should be pronounced "farce."

UPDATE: Official Iran says "humanitarian" rescue, Fars gets caught in another misrepresentation here - read the last paragraph for the smack down.

Iranian threats

U.S. Energy Information Administration Map

In for a penny, in for a pound, I suppose, as another irrational Iranian spokesman threatens (but only once)the U.S. Navy, as set out here:

Iran's army chief on Tuesday warned an American aircraft carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf in Tehran's latest tough rhetoric over the strategic waterway, part of a feud with the United States over new sanctions that has sparked a jump in oil prices.

And, well, this time they mean it so much they won't repeat their warning:

“We usually don’t repeat our warning, and we warn only once,” Ataollah Salehi was cited as saying by the state-run Fars news agency. “We recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf.”

Could Iran close the Strait of Hormuz? Maybe, but, in my view, (1) not for very long and (2) at a huge cost to - Iran. Energy markets would spike, but only until it becomes clear that there are alternative routes for oil to flow (see the map above). See here:

On average, 14 crude oil tankers per day passed through the Strait in 2011, with a corresponding amount of empty tankers entering to pick up new cargos. More than 85 percent of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea, and China representing the largest destinations.
At its narrowest point, the Strait is 21 miles wide, but the width of the shipping lane in either direction is only two miles, separated by a two-mile buffer zone. The Strait is deep and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers, with about two-thirds of oil shipments carried by tankers in excess of 150,000 deadweight tons.
Closure of the Strait of Hormuz would require the use of longer alternate routes at increased transportation costs. Alternate routes include the 745 mile long Petroline, also known as the East-West Pipeline, across Saudi Arabia from Abqaiq to the Red Sea. The East-West Pipeline has a nameplate capacity of about 5 million bbl/d. The Abqaiq-Yanbu natural gas liquids pipeline, which runs parallel to the Petroline to the Red Sea, has a 290,000-bbl/d capacity. Additional oil could also be pumped north via the Iraq-Turkey pipeline to the port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean Sea, but volumes have been limited by the closure of the Strategic pipeline linking north and south Iraq.
The United Arab Emirates is also completing the 1.5 million bbl/d Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline pipeline that will cross the emirate of Abu Dhabi and end at the port of Fujairah just south of the Strait. Other alternate routes could include the deactivated 1.65-million bbl/d Iraqi Pipeline across Saudi Arabia (IPSA), and the deactivated 0.5 million-bbl/d Tapline to Lebanon.

China might be the most affected country if the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

An interesting piece from Arab News by Abdulateef Al-Mulhim, "Strait of Hormuz and Iranian threats":

Every five years, the Iranians would threaten the whole world that they would close the Strait of Hormuz. They never did. They simply can’t do it and they are not capable of doing it even if they wanted to do it.

That the Iranians feel the need to rattle swords right now may be due to the shambles of their already weak economy and the internal political fallout from the drive to develop nuclear weapons. In the meantime, they gain some benefit from increasing oil prices caused by their threats.

Hormuz Strait Word Games Ratcheting Up

A few days ago, we had an Iranian political bozo stirring up international concern with a threat to close down the Strait of Hormuz, followed, as noted in How many Iranian threats to "close the Strait of Hormuz" does it take to make oil prices jump?, by a near immediate denial of the intent of the Iranians to close the strait, now followed by Iranian war games in the Arabian Gulf showing their forces of various types, as they do nearly every year.

In case you are wondering, yes, the U.S. and its allies monitor these games.

In addition, the U.S. and its allies also occasionally rise to the bait tossed out by Iran's clowns and threaten that, surprise, surprise, any effort by Iran to really close the Strait of Hormuz would be "a very bad thing" and that could result in serious letters of warning, meetings of the UN Security Council and perhaps, maybe, at some point in all of Iran's forces being sent to the bottom of the ocean and/or painted pink and being made to live in a country like Iran. This week's counterpoint to Iran's point comes to us via the 5th Fleet via CNN, who are trying very hard to drum this up into a story:U.S. Navy won't tolerate 'disruption' through Strait of Hormuz from CNN.com

The U.S. Navy said Iran's threat to block the strategically and economically important Strait of Hormuz is unacceptable.

"The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is vital to regional and global prosperity," Navy 5th Fleet in Bahrain spokeswoman Cmdr. Amy Derrick Frost told reporters on Wednesday.

"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated."

It's all part of the on-going war with Iran, being fought in many ways, but always asymmetrically by Iran, because, while its leadership may be a bunch of wild and crazy guys, they are not completely nuts.

USS John C.Stennis - Not exactly liking finding Waldo

UPDATE: To add to the fun, the Iranians report, apparently with great joy, they were able to "spot" an aircraft carrier the size of a city block transiting the Strait of Hormuz with its escorts. The real news story would have been if they were unable to see something akin to the Empire State Building floating by their Navy. Report here:

The US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain across from Iran and guards the passageway, confirmed to ABC News that two of its ships did pass through the Strait of Hormuz on Dec.27 en route to the Arabian Sea where they are assisting operations in Afghanistan.

USS Mobile Bay

“The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) and guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay (CG 53), conducted a planned, routine transit through the Strait of Hormuz, Dec. 27

UPDATE2: Okay, Iran got what it wanted Iranian threats push crude above $101/bbl in New York market. Now, if only we had a crude oil pipeline from Canada, this sort of thing wouldn't be so - - dramatically unnecessary.

Iranian Press TV accused of making up stories about U.S. drone strikes in Somalia

Not really surprising, giving the silliness of some of their other fake reporting, but it is nice to see other people noticing. Here's a Daily Telegraph report, "Iranian Press TV accused of faking drone strike reports":

The channel, which is based in Tehran and broadcasts around-the-clock in English, claims that more the 1,370 people have been killed in 56 drone strikes since September - an average of 24 deaths per attack.

But an analysis of their reports by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found no evidence to back up the claims.
***
The US is known to have used drones in Somalia but Tony Burns, the director of operations at the charity Saacid, which is based in Mogadishu, said the cited casualty figures were "simply not possible".
***
A UN official told the Bureau: "Press TV is not a reliable source. It exaggerates and openly fabricates reports," while American diplomats said the reports were "wholly false".

The Iranian Department of Clumsy Disinformation gets another red card.