The US war with Iran entered a new stage yesterday with the attack on two Iranian tankers by US military forces. This was the first implementation of a new approach (sort of) to the war. The “tanker-for-tanker” policy is simple deterrence theory applied to oil tankers. If the Iranians are going to attack tankers leaving the Persian Gulf, then the US will attack Iranian tankers in the Gulf. The idea is the US will not attack Iranian ships if Iran leaves non-Iranian ships alone. It is almost certain to fail. The Iranian approach is one where losses are not only expected but accepted. The same is less true of America. Once again, Iran is likely to win the asymmetrical war.
The New York Times reported:
One ship, a crude oil tanker owned by Saudi Arabia’s national oil company, was struck by “unknown projectiles” about 16 nautical miles off the coast of Oman, according to Marisks, a maritime risk firm. A second ship, a Liberian-flagged supertanker operated by the South Korean company Sinokor, was reportedly struck by “three unknown projectiles” off the coast of Oman. The U.K. Maritime Trade Operations center, which is run by Britain’s Royal Navy, reported an incident on Monday in the same location. No casualties or environmental impact were reported, the agency said.
On Tuesday, U.S. forces retaliated by striking Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps targets. “The strikes follow recent attempted attacks by the IRGC against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and against American service members deployed to the region,” U.S. Central Command said on social media.
The Iranians have shifted their focus to tankers recently rather than US bases in the region, which have taken a pounding the White House is not reporting. Dimitris Maniatis, the founder and chief executive of Marisks, said, “Everybody says the situation is deteriorating and getting worse. But it’s not getting worse; it’s a repetition of the same thing.” Iran has carried out fewer attacks on Gulf neighbors recently and has lashed out at vessels instead, he said.
In a sense, Iran has de-escalated the situation with this change. While it is not about to win over the UAE or Saudis, this shift does remove the threat posed to civilian populations. This will make it easier to talk about potential ways to resolve the legion of problems this war has created.
At the same time, the American military appears to have kept to its strategy of hitting the IRGC targets. That means civilians may suffer, but the Pentagon has taken a “shit happens” approach. Civilians die in wars, and that is just how it is. In addition, the IRGC has far too many installations (it is a state within a state) while the US has shot off far too many missiles. America cannot get all of them.
Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz is closed, despite what the US administration says. US energy secretary Chris Wright says 8 million barrels of oil are sent out of the region (mostly via pipelines) per day. Before the war, the figure was 15 million. On Monday, 5 (five) ships passed through the Strait. Before the war, the daily average was close to 130.
The NYT added, “Many shipping companies say the situation is too dangerous to resume regular trade in the region. The latest attacks on Monday night were at least the ninth to have taken place in the past month, and there have been more than 72 attacks on ships since March, according to the International Maritime Organization, a U.N. agency. At least 19 sailors have been killed.”
JPMorganChase put out a study in the spring warning that September would be a crucial month. Big Go Finance commented on that report yesterday saying, “OECD commercial inventories are expected to begin approaching operational stress thresholds as early as June this year and hit the actual floor by September. At that point, the world faces a choice with no retreat — either the Strait of Hormuz reopens, or we enter uncharted territory of total energy system failure.”
September is here.