Why Biden's plan to arm tankers in the Persian gulf is a bad idea
7 Min Read
According to Responsible Statecraft, Biden may not be aware of the repercussions of arming private vessels in the Persian Gulf.
-
The US ship USS Bataan travels through the Atlantic Ocean en route to the Persian Gulf on July 20, 2023. (AP)
According to Paul Pillar of Responsible Statecraft, the last time the United States deployed ready-to-fight weapons and military troops on ocean-going commercial boats was in the twentieth century during World War II. At the time, the US Navy established an armed guard on merchant ships, which were most of the time enemy targets.
Pillar remarks that hundreds of these ships were sunk, and around 2,000 members of the Armed Guard were killed. Since then, the US had only conducted something similar when escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq war's "tanker war" phase in the 80s but did not station their own troops on the vessels.
Still, Iran was capable of deploying mines and causing damage to the vessels, which forced the US to no longer lead the ships but rather sheepishly lag behind since they were unarmed and more vulnerable.
Although these incidents occurred during raging wars, some US sources have come out and stated US President Joe Biden's intention to place US troops on commercial vessels passing in the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and open ocean.
Pillar notes the suggestion coincides with a real increase in US military activity in and around the Gulf region. Navy ships, Marines, and fighter planes have recently been sent to increase that presence.
Additionally, he points out that these deployments contradict the proclaimed objective of numerous US administrations to minimize, not increase, US military engagement in the Middle East.
Reinforcing US vulnerability
Regardless of motive, the US' sustained — and now growing — military presence in the Middle East reinforces the vulnerabilities of deployed forces in Iraq and Syria and also increases the possibility of the US being involved in larger military conflicts.
The deployments include entering a zone of regional rivalry and are not as simple as the US may think.
The claimed rationale for considering the deployment of US troops aboard commercial ships, as well as the context for earlier US military deployments to the region, is Iran's seizing of certain oil tankers traversing the Strait of Hormuz, which they themselves had been retaliatory moves. However, Pillar believes things would have been different had the US adjusted its policies against Iran.
He recalls that Iran has yet to intercept vessels because of any innate malice that drives them to do so. This approach, like many other Iranian policies and behaviors, is reactive.
The newest round of going after another country's vessels and taking their oil was launched by the US, not Iran. The US sanctions reflect the country's unilateral stance of attempting to halt Iranian oil shipments. This approach is not based on international law, and Iran has considered it piracy. An example is why the US federal prosecutors are unable to sell nearly 800,000 barrels of seized Iranian oil lying aboard a Greek ship off the coast of Texas.
A Houston-based energy executive entangled in the situation admitted that companies "are literally afraid to do it." According to him, numerous companies that were contacted rejected the offer to unload the oil.
Last week, during a military drill organized in the Gulf, the naval forces of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) received a locally developed and produced Qadir missile system and a Fath missile system.
The missiles, which were equipped with artificial intelligence capabilities, were unveiled and delivered to the IRGC, further bolstering the force's naval presence in the Gulf.
According to Pillar, this dynamic is reminiscent of the tanker wars of the 1980s. It was Saddam Hussein's Iraqi administration that initiated the entire Iran-Iraq War, and toward whom US policy was then leaning.
In April, the US seized the Iranian oil tanker Suez Rajan just days before Tehran detained a tanker carrying American cargo in the Gulf of Oman.
Iran cannot be ignored
Other Iranian interceptions are part of a broader response to the US sanctions against Iran, which effectively maintains the Donald Trump administration's "maximum pressure" policy.
Pillar believes Iran is sending a message that it cannot be ignored and that if it cannot export its oil, then others will have difficulty exporting theirs.
The author adds that any talks of deploying military aboard commercial ships must address various issues, the most serious of which is the significant risk of events at sea leading to greater conflict between the US and Iran.
Further difficulties emerge as a result of the fact that the boats to be safeguarded are commercial activities involving largely non-US sailors, ship owners, and commodities merchants. If the protection is to be limited to specific boats, this would be a form of "industrial policy on steroids," raising the typical problems about selecting winners and losers that come with every industrial policy.
If the protection is broad, however, American personnel will be literally taken for a ride on numerous warships whose purpose is defined in terms of the interests of foreign firms and foreign nations, which frequently conflict with the interests of the United Nations.
In addition, Pillar remarks that when it comes to commercial operations that involve security risks, such as exporting oil through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the scope of operations is typically defined by insurance rates and the decisions made by operators in response to those rates—decisions that take into account broader factors such as global demand for oil. Intercession by the United States would entail taking over functions that would be best left to the market and Lloyds of London.
Furthermore, increased US presence in the Gulf contradicts recent de-escalations in the area, like the recent rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia through Chinese mediation as well as a warming of relations between Iran and the United Arab Emirates. The Gulf's smaller Arab countries of Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman have been even more proactive in building cordial relations with Iran as well.
Read more: Iran’s naval alliance with Saudi, Gulf nations ‘defies reason’: US
Pillar warns that policymakers in the US must consider carefully what legacy it will leave in this area as an outside intervenor. Instead of leaving behind a legacy of peace and stability like China, increased military resources may instead result in increased tension.
Increase of US forces in Gulf sign of growing US-Iran tensions
A buildup of US forces across the Persian Gulf is fueling speculation that a possible US-Iran conflict may be nearing, Jon Gambrell stated in a report for the Associated Press on August 1.
Two weeks ago, the US Department of Defense announced that it would send two landing ships, USS Bataan and USS Carter Hal to the Strait of Hormuz.
According to AP, the dispatch of aircraft carriers to the Gulf comes as the US "wants to focus on China and Russia."
The report, however, cites Iran's uranium enrichment as the main reason behind the US' military buildup in the region.
Amid dying prospects for reviving the JCPOA deal, the US has in recent months accused Iran of allegedly harassing ships attempting to make their way through the Strait.
