Iran to use mines, missiles to shut Hormuz

Iranian lawmakers call for closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz amid a sharpening confrontation in the Persian Gulf while Revolutionary Guards display their missile might against a mock U.S. base during desert exercises.

But Tehran has a range of other weapons it can use to close down the vital oil artery.

These include the hard-to-detect Chinese EM-52 "rocket mine" that's triggered by the distinctive magnetic our acoustic signature of a ship, such as a U.S. aircraft carrier, and then launches a propelled 600-popund warhead at the target.

Then there's the Russian MDM6, equally difficult to detect, that can tackle multiple targets. It lies on the seabed that fires a torpedo-like warhead when it senses a vessel.

Both these mines can be laid by Iran's three Russian-built Kilo-class submarines.

As the United States builds up its forces in the gulf, including the recent arrival of four new mines countermeasures ships to boost U.S.-British minesweeping strength to 12, the New York Times quoted a senior Defense Department official as saying:

"The message to Iran is, 'Don't even think about it'. Don't even think about closing the strait. We'll clear the mines.

"Don't even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We'll put them on the bottom of the gulf."

It's clear the U.S. 5th Fleet, which right now includes two battle groups headed by the carriers Abraham Lincoln and the Enterprise and their formidable force of F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets, and U.S. air power in the region is vastly superior to Iran's military forces.

But the Iranians aren't planning to fight a conventional war with the more technologically advanced Americans.

They plan to employ what's known as asymmetric warfare, in which the weaker forces using unconventional means to overcome the power of a strong opponent.

That means mines, anti-ship missiles and swarm attacks by small heavily armed boats. Think Lilliputians against Gulliver.

By most accounts, Iran is believed to have as many as 3,000 sea mines. Some estimates go as high as 5,000.

Whatever, it's the fourth largest sea mine arsenal in the world after the United States, Russia and China, which has been supplying Iran with these weapons since 1998.

The EM-52 is probably the most dangerous mine Iran has. But the bottom-influence EM-11 and the EM-31 moored mine can also play havoc with surface craft.

So while the anonymous Pentagon official cited by The New York Times may well be right that the Americans will deep six Iran's warships, the allied naval forces face a formidable foe.

"Iran's ability to lay a large number of mines in a short period of time remains a critical aspect of the stated capability to deny U.S. forces access to the gulf and impede or halt shipping through the strait," cautioned U.S. analyst Anthony Cordesman in a March analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Iran has hundreds of anti-ship missiles, including 300 Chinese-designed C-201 Seersucker weapons and 200 C-801 indigenous Noor systems, deployed along its long gulf coastline, as well as air-launched weapons and cruise missiles.

"It's notable that the U.S. never successfully targeted Iraq's anti-ship missile assets during the war to liberate Kuwait, although they were deployed along a far smaller coastal area," Cordesman observed.

Iran's air force is largely made up of aging U.S.-built F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats acquired during the reign of the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi before he was toppled in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, with some Soviet-era MiG-29s and Sukhoi Su-24 ground-attack jets.

These are outclassed and outgunned by the U.S. air power now deployed in the gulf.

Although Iran's army and the more formidable Revolutionary Guards Corps, a combined force of some 400,000 troops, vastly outnumber U.S. and allied ground forces, it's not likely that any conflict will involve such forces to any significant extent.

So it's from the sea the Iranians will out up their main fight.

How long the shooting will last is anyone's guess. U.S. firepower and technology will doubtless triumph in the end, but it won't be cost-free.

Hormuz could be closed to tanker traffic for several weeks, and the disruption in oil supplies will trigger severe global economic problems.

But it remains to be seen whether that will mean Iran backs off its nuclear project prog

Iran expects to equip Gulf ships with missiles soon

Iran expects to equip its ships in the Strait of Hormuz soon with shorter-range missiles, a Revolutionary Guards commander was quoted as saying, in the latest apparent warning to the West not to attack it over its disputed nuclear program.

The Islamic Republic has threatened to shut the Strait, the conduit out of the Gulf for 40 percent of the world's seaborne oil trade, if Western sanctions aimed at curbing its nuclear works block its own crude exports.

The European Union plans to impose a total embargo on Iranian oil from Sunday and has told Tehran that more punitive steps could follow if it keeps defying U.N. demands for limits nuclear activity that could be of use in developing bombs.

"We have already equipped our vessels with missiles with a range of 220 km (136 miles) and we hope to introduce missiles with a range of over 300 km (186 miles) soon," Ali Fadavi said, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported on Friday.

"We could target from our shores all areas in the Persian Gulf region, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman."

Iran is about 225 km (140 miles) at its nearest point from Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based, and about 1,000 km (625 miles) from its arch-enemy Israel. Tehran's longest-range missile, the Sajjil-2, can fly up to 2,400 km (1,500 miles).

Iran's military and security establishment often asserts its strength in the region, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil transit channel carrying supplies from Gulf producers to the West.

But it has increasingly flexed its military muscle in the face of U.S. and Israeli warnings that last-resort military action against Iran cannot be ruled out if diplomacy and sanctions fail to resolve the nuclear dispute.

In January, the Islamic Republic said it had successfully test-fired what it called two long-range missiles.

Earlier this month, the Iranian navy announced plans to build more warships and increase its presence in international waters such as the Gulf of Aden and northern Indian Ocean.

Iran denies Western suspicions that it is trying to develop technology and material required to produce nuclear weapons, saying it needs the know-how solely to generate electricity.

Tehran has said it would retaliate for any attack with missile strikes against Israel and U.S. assets in the Gulf.

A third round of nuclear talks between world powers and Iran on June 18-19 aimed ultimately at curbing Iranian nuclear activity in exchange for sanctions relief failed to ease the stalemate. With that process seemingly close to collapse, Israel renewed veiled threats to hit Iranian nuclear installations that it considers a mortal threat.

Eyeballing Iran? US commissions 361 cruise missiles

US Navy to get 361 new Tomahawk cruise missiles, most of which are meant for Fifth Fleet destroyers based in Bahrain. Meanwhile, pressure to mount military strike against Tehran is permeating presidential campaign

The United States has commissioned 361 new Tomahawk cruise missiles, and some 238 of them are meant to find their way to the Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain, Ynet learned on Sunday.

According to the SW Insider, the deal – inked on the backdrop of repeated deadlocks in the nuclear negotiations between the West and Iran – may suggest that the US is gearing for a possible military campaign against the Islamic Republic.

US defense contractor Raytheon won the deal, for a reported $331 million.

According to the report, the deal – which follows repeated statements by both Israel and the US that "all options are on the table," and in view of Iran's recent naval maneuvers and military exercises – is another sign that "all sides are getting ready for the possibility of military conflict."

The missiles commissioned, the report added, "Will be designed to launch from submarines and the remainder from Navy ships currently operating with the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain east of Iran." 

 Similar missiles were used by the US against Muammar Gaddafi's regime in Libya.

 Additionally, the US Navy has commissioned 17,000 advanced submarine detection systems, for a reported $13 million.

'Time to act'

Meanwhile, Washington is still trying to devise diplomatic ways to stem Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

Dennis Ross, who served as a special advisor on Iran on the National Security Council, said that the only way to get Iran to suspend its nuclear activities is to make it realize that the threat of war is real. He further suggested "calling Iran's bluff" by offering Tehran civilian nuclear capabilities.

Former Secretary of State James Baker said that should nothing change and Iran does, within one year's time, reach nuclear capabilities, then the US should be the one to lead a strike against it, because it has the necessary force to end Tehran's nuclear program.

The pressure on US President Barack Obama to present a viable military option against Iran is growing, as 44 senators – Democrats and Republicans – demanded the he set clear preconditions for continuing the nuclear talks.

The pressure to mount a military strike is also permeating the presidential campaign: The Emergency Committee for Israel, a neo-conservative organization headed by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, aired a special spot in Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – key states in the presidential elections – urging Obama to strike Iran.

"President Obama has spent four years talking – Iran has spent four year building a secret nuclear site," the video says. "Obama is still talking and Iran has enough fuel for five nuclear bombs. Talking isn’t working – it's time to act."

As nuclear talks fail, U.S. experts urge Obama to weigh military option on Iran

Senators send letter to U.S. President, advising cut of diplomatic push to end standoff; American ex-official: We need the third track, a visible preparations for a military option.

American officials and experts urged U.S. President Barack Obama this week to take a tougher stance on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, with some advising the administration to provide Israel with the arms needed for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Ahead of a failed round of nuclear talks with Iran in Moscow, 44 U.S. senators wrote a letter to Obama, calling him to consider withdrawing from a dialogue in absence of tangible agreement, and focusing on increasing pressure.

The missive included specific demands to be met by Tehran in case of a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff, saying that among "the absolute minimum steps it [Iran] must take immediately are shutting down the Fordo nuclear facility, freezing enrichment above 5 percent, and shipping all uranium enriched above five percent out of the country."

In addition, on Wednesday, one day after the talks with Iran in Moscow ended without visible results, U.S. lawmakers discussed the options ahead for dealing with Iran, specifically with a military strike as a means to thwart Tehran's nuclear program.

At the hearing of the House Armed Services Committee titled "Addressing the Iranian Nuclear Challenge: Understanding the Military Option," former Senator Charles Robb of the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) urged in his testimony that "the dual approach of diplomacy and sanctions simply have not proved to be enough. We need the third track, and that is credible and visible preparations for a military option."

Robb explained that judging by past behavior of Iran, the best chance to induce it to concessions is when it is "in a dire and military threat."

He gave some examples of what he called "credible military readiness" - "augmenting the 5th Fleet's capacity by procuring and deploying force protection munitions; defend U.S. naval forces against potential Iranian retaliation by pre- positioning military supplies across the region, including strategic bombers, bunker buster munitions and fuel; by exploring strategic partnerships with countries on Iran's northern perimeter such as Azerbaijan; by conducting broad military exercises with regional allies."

Another suggestion was "augmenting Israeli offensive and defensive capabilities, including the sale to Israel of three KC-135 aerial refueling tankers and 200 GBU-31 bunker-busting munitions needed in whatever missile defense systems are needed."

"One of the reasons that we're recommending that additional KC-135s be supplied so that the credibility of the Israeli response to crossing a red line that they have laid down would be taken more seriously, because you do have very significant distances and the ability to strike and return without re-fuelers is very much in question," he added.

Robb stressed that "we are not urging Israel to take unilateral military action against Iran nuclear facilities, but we need to make their capability to do so stronger so that Iran will take that threat more seriously."

"We are not advocating another war in this region. We'd like to see this perilous situation resolved peacefully. We applaud the president for offering an open hand to a closed fist in his very first few minutes as president, but diplomacy simply hasn't done the job," Robb added.

This is despite the fact that Vice Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who is currently on visit to Washington, said on Tuesday at the Washington Institute that if there will be no other resort with Iran but the military strike, U.S. and other Western powers should lead it.

David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security, said at the hearing that he sees the threat of military action by President Obama as "genuine", but argued that surgical strikes "will simply not work, at least by themselves."

Albright added that he believes there will be enough time to detect an Iranian breakout - "sufficiently long to allow a response."

Albright also explained that his institution recommended among other things "strengthening the credibility of the Israeli military threat against Iran, as well as the U.S. military threat" - recommendations that were picked up by lawmakers (a bill called the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 called on the United States to provide Israel with additional aerial refueling tankers, missile-defense capabilities and specialized munitions, such as bunker-busters).

Republican Congressmen seemed to agree with the experts - and some expressed concern that cuts to the military budget could undermine the credibility of the military option.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) asked: "What kind of conflict do we have in sending that message of a credible threat of force when Iran is watching us with these huge defense cuts that we're doing - $487 billion and then sequestration looming out there, which certainly sends a message to the world we may not have that kind of credible force?"

"When you talk about beefing up the 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman - how does that conflict with the new strategy of this pivot to the Asia-Pacific area? We can't have it kind of both ways," he said.

Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Ca) said the Obama administration message on Iran "has not always been consistent", adding that "unfortunately it is not clear that the Iranian regime is deterred by such statements". McKeon said lawmakers are fully aware of the risks of the military option, but that it's the committee's responsibility "to ensure that the military option is credible."

Rep. Austin Scott said that "we as a country cannot expect Israel to take this challenge on by themselves. We've got to stand by them. They're our true ally over there."

Democrats seemed more wary of the military option, even reminding the too-quick Congress approval of the war in Iraq.