No, the U.S. can’t escort tankers in the Persian Gulf today as it did during the 1980s Tanker War.
Back in the 80s, the U.S. swooped into a regional conflict where attacks on shipping were limited, and the Strait remained open. Neither of those is the case with the Iran War. The U.S. Navy has fewer ships today than it did back then, so widespread protection is a much different conversation (especially with thousands of commercial ships trapped). And of course, modern warfare has evolved. We’re dealing with drones and missiles that leave the U.S. Navy much more vulnerable.
You add all that up, and we’re looking at a very different Tanker War than the one your daddy saw in the 80s. So, the only path forward is likely a political one.
Morning everybody, from a foggy Colorado. Today we’re taking a question from the Patreon crowd specifically why the US can’t escort tankers and civilian ships like them to and from the Persian Gulf like we did back in the 1980s during the Tanker war? Well, three big differences. Number one, first, the nature of the conflict.
The last time around in the tanker war, the United States was a late comer. It was originally a conflict that was a subset of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980 to 1988, and by the time we got to the town of that conflict, both sides were trying to destroy the other’s economic opportunities. And since they lacked the military capability to make a meaningful pushes towards oil production, they went after concentrations like the tankers.
And so you had Iraqi aircraft that were Iranian tankers, and the Iranians would use a combination of surface ships, speedboats and missiles like the Chinese Silkworm to go after Iraqi and everyone else in the street was just kind of caught in the crossfire.
Most of the damage done, most of the attacks were in the northern part of the Gulf, where most of the was originally exported. And so the United States came in with an aircraft carrier battle group, put it in the Gulf along with multiple task forces. And at any time involving 40 to 80 ships and some ships like Kuwaiti tankers would be reflagged and others would just be escorted in. Each cluster typically had five destroyers and a number of Coast Guard cutters assigned to it, and they would go in big convoys.
That’s all different this time. This time it’s a direct conflict between the United States and Iran. And Iran has chosen shutting down the strait as a direct means of attack in the United States has chosen shutting down Iranian shipments as a direct means of attack. So unlike last time when the strait itself was open and the Iranians and the Iraqis were selective in their targets, now are on is willing to attack, pretty much anything in the United States is blocking all shipments from all Iranian ports.
So that’s the first big difference. The nature of the conflict is very, very, very different. Second, the the nature of the US Navy is very, very different. Back then the United States had a 500 plus ship Navy. Today we’re under 300. And while today ships are faster and tougher and far more lethal, they are fewer in number. And so putting as many vessels into the Persian Gulf is just not an option.
Also, something that was present back then was the Coast Guard. But the Coast Guard has been steadily whittled down over the course of the last 40 years and doesn’t have enough ships to spare. In addition, the US ships that are involved are tend to be larger and tougher, and if they’re going to slow down in order to convoy, that’s a bit of a problem.
So remember, there were like 60 ships at any given time that were part of the escort effort last time. Today we only have 60 destroyers, and half of those at any given time are designed to protect the carriers and United States under Donald Trump, I think, wisely, has chosen to not put a carrier in the Gulf. Yes, you would be able to use closer munitions that are cheaper and easier to replace, and that’s our very real consideration.
But it also means that a carrier could be attacked by the third difference, which is a new generation of warfare. Back then, Iran was only emerging. I was on the tail end of a really long, grueling war with Iraq. Its weapons choices were somewhat limited. You had the Chinese silkworms that had a range of about 50 miles and 1,000 pound warhead, and the Persian Gulf isn’t 50 miles wide. So it was pretty easy for something like a carrier to be over the horizon, be basically immune to anything that the Iranians can do. That’s not where we are anymore. Today’s drones might need GPS targeting, but we now have a series of things called super heads, which don’t, which means that they can choose their own target when they get close.
And if there was a carrier in the Gulf, I can guarantee you that the United States would be under constant missile bombardment. And as we’ve seen with the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf, the U.S. is basically run out of interceptors, and the ability to protect its own ships would be limited. Over the weekend, when we saw the first effort by the United States to escort vessels, that was really the first time we’d seen major surface combatants from the United States in the Gulf at all.
In this conflict, we’ve been doing everything at arm’s length. That means we’re running out of long range munitions, which is a problem. But it also underscores the degree to which that this is contested space now. And the United States can’t just sail in and break it open. In addition, when we did this in the 1980s, you were talking about typically 11 ships at a time as part of the convoy group.
There’s 2000 ships trapped in the Gulf right now. So we’ve got different ships. It’s a different kind of conflict. We don’t have the numbers, and the numbers that need to be moved are just massive. The only way to open the Gulf is with a political solution with Tehran. And again, talks have yet to begin on that topic.
About the only good news I can give you is that we’re now seeing early signs that the Iranians are starting to shut in oil production because they don’t have anywhere to put it. Just keep in mind that the Iranians do consume a couple million barrels a day themselves, and that will never get shut in. So they can be selective about what they’re shutting in.
It’s not like you just flip a switch tomorrow and all of a sudden they’re out of money. But for the first time in the conflict, we are now seeing economic pressure on the elements of the regime that are making the security decisions. That is encouraging conversation. Those conversations just haven’t really started yet. The biggest takeaway is that the United States is the world’s most powerful navy, with the best projection power in human history, and we now know for the mix of geographic reasons and economic reasons and technical reasons, that the US Navy no longer has the ability to impose a strategic reality on a local basis against a to be perfectly blunt, fourth rate security power. This is a big change in how the world works. It is very, very, very easy to deny civilian access now. And it is very, very difficult to restore it. And you can play this specific scenario out on almost any place in the Eastern hemisphere. And it’s difficult to see the US Navy doing any better. So if we do get into a fight with a real country in the future, we should count on those waterways being closed for at least the duration of the fighting.
