An update for ShockForce just got more relevant!

[dan/california]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/iran-threatens-to-block-oil-route-if-embargo-is-imposed.html?hp

It appears that Iran wants to stimulate the economy the old fashioned way.

[pazuzusmiles]

agreed dan/california~!

[MikeyD]

Heaven save us from neocons needlessly kicking over hornets nests... again.

[Erwin]

Plus ca change...

[YankeeDog]

I'm all for a new CMx2 modern game, but I don't think a significant ground invasion of Iran is at all likely, even given present events.

To be sure, the chances of Naval and/or aerial conflict, missile exchanges, etc. in the not so distant future in and around the straits of Hormuz definitely just took a tick upward. And if things really go South, I could even potentially see very limited ground incursions (e.g., special forces insertions into Iranian territory for recon and or to eliminate specific point targets).

But the U.S. simply doesn't have the inclination or the resources for a large-scale ground invasion of Iran right now. Iran is far larger both in terms of geographical size and population than either Iraq or Syria. Any conventional land invasion of Iran would have to be a far larger undertaking

than OIF, or the hypothetical invasion of Syria presented in CMSF. You'd pretty much be looking at a NATO total mobilization.

And if the U.S. doesn't lead, certainly no one else is going to send troops marching into Tehran. Even given current saber rattling from Tehran, I think you still have to posit something like CMSF's raison d'etre of dirty bomb attacks on major European cities to get to the point where there would be a ground invasion of Iran. If Iran does attempt to interfere with ship traffic through the Straits of Hormuz (gunboat and surface-to-surface missile attacks, whatever) most likely result would be a proportionate response, via standoff, naval, and aerial assets.

So any likely near-term conflict with Iran would almost certainly be out of CMx2's ballpark. If BFC were developing an asymmetrical naval warfare simulator, and/or a modern air operations simulator, then there's definitely material to be mined in what's going on right now. But ground combat a la OIF and CMSF? Ain't gonna happen, even if Gingrich gets elected...

[Sakai007]

I am with YankeeDog on this one. That's why I've been playing Harpoon ANW all morning running through some missions that predicted such an encounter. Iran has been all sorts of aggressive here recently, and I wouldn't put it past them to send a silkworm or two at some Arleigh Burke DDGs patrolling near the Strait. I don't think the Iranians will try to close the strait through pure military force, I think they will pull an Egypt and sink 40 or so merchant ships to block it and then attack the ships that try to clear the channel as they will be sitting ducks. Unless there is a CVNBG or two cruising in the area, then things will not be so much fun for their air crews at the very least. I just don't see anything Iran has in it's airforce as being able to do any good besides making big chaff clouds when they are shot down by SuperBugs with AMRAAMs. The swarms of small boats armed with ASMs?? This might be a more effective, but no less bloody, way to attack us in this area.

[YankeeDog]

...I just don't see anything Iran has in it's airforce as being able to do any good besides making big chaff clouds when they are shot down by SuperBugs with AMRAAMs. The swarms of small boats armed with ASMs?? This might be a more effective, but no less bloody, way to attack us in this area.

Yep. I think direct attacks by the Iranian Air Force are pretty much a nonstarter. To me, the interesting part of any potential air conflict is what happens if Iran starts launching ASMs from land at tankers in the Straits -- the Straits are less than 50 miles wide at their narrowest point, and Iran has a variety of sea-skimming missiles with over twice this range.

Many of the Iran's land-based ASMs are very well concealed and/or mounted on mobile truck launchers. Further, Iran has a large amount of territory within ASM range of the Straits, so there are many places to hide the launchers. If the Iranians really want to push things, they can set up an expensive and risky game of Whack-a-Mole between U.S. airpower and Iranian ground ASM batteries (which are, or course, protected by a variety of AA assets).

Then there's what happens on and under the water... Iran clearly has no problem with throwing away lives of its sailors and soldiers, so if the potential gains are high enough, I don't think they'll have any problem attempting some risky tactics. When properly executed, small boat swarms have been shown in USN wargames to present a very real threat to even well-protected assets like CVNBGs. Iran also has some small diesel submarines. While not high-tech by U.S. standards, these subs are VERY difficult to detect in littoral waters, and also have minelaying capabilities. If one of these manages to sneak into the right place, it could cause very serious damage, very quickly. And in the past, Iran has also laid mines in the gulf from vessels like converted fishing trawlers.

Interesting stuff for wargaming. Scary stuff for real life.

[Medex]

I agree about the ground invasion theory's. But wouldn't this be a perfect time or excuse for the western powers using air power to take a chunk out of Iran' military facilities and more importantly Nuclear facilities.

[dan/california]

I didn't say it was a pleasant possibility IRL. But its a great excuse to get the Iranian OOB in the game.

[Erwin]

http://wargamingcommunity.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/israel-vs-iran-wargame-compendium/

[black_prince]

Even in the event of a strike I doubt the Iranians would attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz completely for all their bluster. China is massively dependant on Middle Eastern oil and is a major trading partner of Iran's. One of the reasons the diplomatic efforts against Iran's nuclear programme have had so little effect is a lack of support for strong sanctions from China and Russia. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would leave Iran completely isolated in diplomatic terms. In such a scenario Iran probably would be able to close the straits for a limited period of time using mines, shore launched ASMs, fast attack boats and miniature submarines. However, the net result would be the effective destruction of the Iranian Navy and Air force and a massive degradation of its nuclear programme and wider economy by an extended campaign of bombing and sanctions.

It is hard to predict precisely how much damage would be done to the global economy by a spike in the price of oil. Whatever economic damage is caused though I doubt it will halt military operations against Iran. There are probably a number of contingencies in place though such as bringing additional pipeline capacity (to the Red Sea) online in Saudi Arabia and possibly making available stocks from the US strategic oil reserve. Moreover, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz will almost certainly result in the rest of the gulf countries instantly arraying themselves against Iran and providing whatever support is required to a coalition whose mission will be to re-open the strait (and most likely render Iran unable to seriously threaten navigation in the area again in the near future). With an abundance of bases and facilities from which to operate, the coalition will most likely be able to absorb any Iranian ballistic missile attacks with little impact on their operations.

I think a more likely scenario is a carefully calculated and calibrated response by Iran. In the case of a strike against Iran by Israel, Iran will most likely retaliate with ballistic missiles and through Hezbollah. It will probably also re-double its efforts to attack Israeli and Western targets through the associates of its Qods force. I think any attacks on gulf shipping are likely to be limited in scope so as not to invite massive retaliation. Iran might even decide to do a 'North Korea' by utilising its submarine fleet to attack shipping while retaining an element of deniability. Such attacks would nonetheless be sufficient to drive up oil prices. Iran could also increase its support of Afghan insurgent groups however I think they are unlikely to provide them with any really advanced weapons or equipment due to their distrust of such groups.

On the other hand, it may well be that the Iranian government has made the calculation that no matter how extensive are the military strikes and sanctions levied against it, a ground invasion (other perhaps than a limited one on the gulf islands and Hormuz coastline) is extremely unlikely. The mullahs may even come to the conclusion that such operations will ultimately strengthen their regime in the long term. My own feeling is that the Iranian regime is on the whole a little too conservative to take such a gamble. However, there have long been reports of a conflict within the regime between more conservative elements and hardliners who wish to indulge in a more confrontational foreign policy.

Given the very valid points raised by Yankee Dog, my assertions that a closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran would be temporary and would result in the destruction of the Iranian Navy may sound a bit foolhardy. However, the Strait of Hormuz is so vital to the global economy, the US and the wider international community would undoubtedly throw so many resources into the fight that Iran's navy would have a very short shelf life indeed, even in the best circumstances.

I once read a fairly detailed report on how long the Iran was likely to be able to close the straits of Hormuz for. The report specified a minefield covered by shore launched anti-ship missiles as the most effective way to close the strait. One of the key variables determining the estimates of how long the straits would stay closed for was the extent to which the Iranians would be able to complete the minefield before their mine laying activities were halted. With regard to shore launched missiles, the report actually claimed that the terrain surrounding the Strait of Hormuz limited the area from which anti-ship missiles could be fired. IIRC the longest estimate of how long the strait would remain closed was somewhere in the region of 2-3 months. It would be interesting (although decidedly unpleasant) to read a report on what effects the closure of the Strait for 3 months was likely to have. I'll try to find the report and post it here.

Sorry for the long post but this is something that (horrifyingly) fascinates me.

[black_prince]

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18409/closing_time.html

There you go.

[Erwin]

Time is the issue... If they can simply make the straits appear more dangerous, that will increase insurance on the ships, delay traffic as minesweepers have to go everywhere first, which in turn increase the price of oil, and that alone will threaten the very fragile western economies while making it hard for the west to mount any major attacks. The west cannot afford the time nor the money for a major attack, and it can't afford oil prices to spike.

The Iranians are timing this all quite well.

[Medex]

I didn't say it was a pleasant possibility IRL. But its a great excuse to get the Iranian OOB in the game.

lol.. your thread is veering off course. Sorry about that.

But yeah I agree. Why not.

[dan/california]

Time is the issue... If they can simply make the straits appear more dangerous, that will increase insurance on the ships, delay traffic as minesweepers have to go everywhere first, which in turn increase the price of oil, and that alone will threaten the very fragile western economies while making it hard for the west to mount any major attacks. The west cannot afford the time nor the money for a major attack, and it can't afford oil prices to spike.

The Iranians are timing this all quite well.

Brinkmanship on both sides is one of the classic ways to start more than anybody meant too.

[YankeeDog]

Time is the issue... If they can simply make the straits appear more dangerous, that will increase insurance on the ships, delay traffic as minesweepers have to go everywhere first, which in turn increase the price of oil, and that alone will threaten the very fragile western economies while making it hard for the west to mount any major attacks. The west cannot afford the time nor the money for a major attack, and it can't afford oil prices to spike.

The Iranians are timing this all quite well.

Yep; that's the game they're playing.

At the same time, as Black Prince has noted, there are some considerable risks for the Iranians here. If the West's economies are shaky, Iran's is downright wobbly, and there is a very real risk that the Iranians upset their own apple cart if they push things too far. It's a game of brinksmanship.

From the perspective of the Iranian hardliners, probably the ideal result would be that the increased tension in the region results in some sort of incident where the U.S. or Israel shoots first (or at least Tehran can plausibly argue that the U.S. or Israel "started it"). Then they can play the victim card, which they can use counter some of the international pressure calling for more severe sanctions, as well as shore up their domestic standing. Nothing deflects criticism over domestic shortcomings like a good external boogeyman.

From the Iranian perspective, It's not the opinion of countries like the U.S. or Israel that matter. The current Iranian regime doesn't like us and we don't like them and this isn't going to change anytime soon. What really matters to Iran is the opinion of countries like Russia and China, which are strong trading partners but are sympathetic to Iran more out of practical necessity than any real sense of affiliation or respect. China likes Iran simply because Iran sells them a lot of oil and buys a lot of Chinese stuff. But if the current regime in Iran does something that really upsets the world economy and results in direct consequences for China, you can bet that Iran's standing with Beijing will fall very quickly. The situation is similar with Russia.

Alienation of other Gulf countries is also an issue for Iran, though I would argue a lesser one than their relations with the Chinese and Russians.

[black_prince]

Erwin's comment got me thinking about the timing in economic terms. At the risk of sounding overly sanguine I started thinking that this might not actually be the worst time for a 'Hormuz conflict' from an economic point of view.

Consider the following.

There could never be a good time for a spike in the price of oil. However, if you are going to experience an increase in oil prices, isn't it better to have them when global demand is relatively weak rather than have them spike from an already high floor? What's more, a spike in oil prices will no doubt increase the rate of inflation. As governments tend to lend at fixed interest rates, increased inflation will have the effect of eroding the value of our outstanding debts.

Of course, a higher oil price and increased inflation will also snuff out whatever anaemic economic growth that may currently exist in the West. Unemployment will increase. Tax receipts will fall and the welfare bill will increase. The solvency of many countries will be put in doubt as bond yields rise.

This though, is where the cash rich gulf countries such as Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi step in. Dependant on the US for the defence of their commerce, the gulf countries could perhaps be persuaded to assuage the situation by participating in bond purchases with heavily discounted yields or by providing large, very long term, loans. Even China might be persuaded to assist in this way when faced with being deprived of its vital energy imports.

Of course, all of this would likely take place against a background of great social unrest as the already painful economic circumstances became more painful still and inflation reduced the living standards of even those in employment. Energy rationing might also be enforced adding to the sense of misery. Once again however, the problem provides its own solution. The finger of blame could be pointed squarely at Iran and the anger of the masses would take on a more nationalistic flavour.

I am not for a moment suggesting the above scenario would be in any way desirable. I am merely trying to envisage the way that such a situation may unfold. Personally, I am still sceptical that Iran would attempt to block the strait. Nonetheless, the possibility exists and the policy makers really need to balance scenarios such as the one above against the desire to halt Iran's nuclear programme.

[Erwin]

This is similarly apropo:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/if-iran-provokes-an-energy-crisis-modeling-the-problem-in-a-war-game?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

[dan/california]

They are also at great risk of Saddam's 1991 mistake. Starting a war right Before you get the bomb is an excellent way to get your country backed up a 100 years or so. Blocking the Straight would the the absolutely guaranteed causis belli that the rest of the world would blame them for.

[LongLeftFlank]

The Persian race and civilzation is one of the most ancient, sophisticated, cunning and persistent in the world; I suspect they hold the world record for continuously running Civilization spending the least time under the sway of others. Islam is the only foreign-inspired institution to last any length of time there and it has developed distinct Persian characteristics. And while I'm engaged in gross stereotypes, their women are the hottest on the planet.

The Khomeini period -- basically a class revolution in which a clique of rural clerics seized control of the nation -- marks a real low point in their long history, a cultural and economic Dark Age and probably the worst patch they've been through since the Mongol invasion of the 1240s. That said, a number of fairly sophisticated (that word again!) factions have emerged and evolved since, particularly the Revolutionary Guards which have evolved into a multinational paramilitary, terrorist, organized crime and even legitimate business empire not dissimilar to the SS. These organizations will continue to evolve and like the Soviet Communist Party, may well morph into something quite different over time, although it is unlikely to be something we Westerners will ever find warm and fuzzy.

Bottom line: it's completely pointless to blame any foreigner, much less the CIA, for the ills that beset them. They control their own destiny and the only people who are going to change them are them.

[Erwin]

In terms of what could happen in the future, the markets control everything, and the markets are affected by perception and rumor (even facts occasionally).

It matters less what anyone says than what people with a stake in the issue think/fear they may do.

[black_prince]

Many thanks for the link to the report Erwin.

Well, so far all the bravado doesn't seem to have done alot to the oil price. However, I have noted two big defence deals with the UAE and Saudi have just been anounced-the Saudi one in particular is massive with with a further 84 F-15s on order. Its seems the net beneficiaries of all this anxiety over the strait are western defence industries.

[Erwin]

Which is what it's all designed to do... Who do you think runs the country (US) and gets us into these wars? (And I speak as one who has had the "good fortune" to be a beneficiary.)

[Boche]

To anyone interested in a sort of study on the subject, I found these link the other day. Quite an interesting read!

http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=65896

[black_prince]

Very informative source, just finished reading the Naval forces section. While I've read alot of stuff online regarding Iran's maritime oob, this report really helped me to get a better understanding of what the likely roles and capabilities of the Iranian assets are. I'd also never heard of the Khalij Fars ASBM before, niether had I realised just how many AShM and torpedo armed speedboats Iran possesed.

There are a few questions that the report raised in my mind though:

1. Where are Iranian Naval operations typically commanded from? Are these hardened/underground facilities?

2. What kind of comms fit are the armed speedboats likely to possess and how good is radio discipline amongst IRGN/Iranian Navy?

3. To what extent are Iran's Revolutionary Guard junior officers authorised and trained to take independent action.

4. Is Iran likely to have sufficient stocks of Anti-ship missiles to simultaneuosly equip its plethora of surface vessels and shore batteries?

5. What portion of Iran's naval forces are kept at heightened readiness and does Iran keep one or more of its Kilo class boats on patrol in case of sudden attack?

Any answers, specualtion, educated guesses or wags with respect to the above would be very much appreciated.

P.S. Happy 2012!