In the wake of a nuclear summit in Washington, D.C., and a counter-nuclear summit with various non-aligned nations in Tehran, the Islamic Republic of Iran has begun a three-day military exercise in the Persian Gulf called “Great Prophet 5.”
In the lead-up to the military exercise, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that President Obama’s nuclear summit amounted to “atomic threats against Iranian people.” The Pentagon’s comment that the option of a military strike on Iran “remains on the table,” and Secretary of Defense Gate’s misconstrued “memo” to the White House have done nothing to appease Khamenei’s paranoia of a US or Israeli strike on Iran.
With rhetoric in both countries heating up — and the coy non-commitment of the Chinese and Russians over a new sanctions regimen — the West’s policy options are shrinking. In light of recent events, however, policy makers must not overestimate the significance of these war games.
Professor Stephen Walt’s recent blog entry on the Great Prophet 5 reminds us that US defense capabilities (even under their current strain) dwarf any Iranian show of force. He references statistics from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, showing the vast differences by the numbers:
Gross Domestic Product (GDP):
United States — $13.8 trillion
Iran –$359 billion
Defense spending (2008):
US — $692 billion
Iran — $9.6 billion
Military personnel:
US –1,580,255 active; 864,547 reserves (very well trained)
Iran — 525,000 active; 350,000 reserves (poorly trained)
Combat aircraft:
US — 4,090 (includes USAF, USN, USMC and reserves)
Iran — 312 (serviceability questionable)
Main battle tanks:
US — 6,251 (Army + Marine Corps)
Iran — 1,613 (serviceability questionable)
Navy:
US — 11 aircraft carriers, 99 principal surface combatants, 71 submarines, 160 patrol boats, plus large auxiliary fleet
Iran — 6 principal surface combatants, 10 submarines, 146 patrol boats
Nuclear weapons:
US — 2,702 deployed, >6,000 in reserve
Iran — Zero
Although these statistics are valuable in identifying the conventional military power of both nations, they do not address the unconventional means by which the Iranians could exercise force in the Gulf. For a good analysis of how Iran could use unconventional military force to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, see Caitlin Talmudge’s article titled “Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz.”
One particularly effective unconventional asset is Iran’s state-sponsored support of terrorism. While this has been well documented for quite some time, the DoD’s recent unclassified report to Congress has announced that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ shadowy Qods Force is establishing a presence in Venezuela (Arms Control Wonk has some great analysis of the DoD report here). Will the Obama administration consider this a tacit violation of the Monroe Doctrine, as Republican Congressman Thadeus McCotter has argued? Via Facebook, Rep. McCotter argued that the Monroe Doctrine was “being shredded” and that border security was deteriorating as a result of this action.
And what about the recent Israeli claim that Hezbollah is now in control of SCUD missiles? If these missiles were delivered by the Syrians (with the quiet support of Iran), will the Israelis feel a greater need for preemptive action in the region?
When reflecting on current events it’s easy to compare the art of diplomacy to poker. With each round that goes by, the risk increases as each player has more money (and prestige) on the line. When it’s time to finally reveal one’s cards, the best players have been thinking about the endgame since the ante was placed. The question is, which nation has been playing its cards with an identifiable endgame in mind?
