Login
iscover
With tensions between the US and Iran continuing to bubble away following the shoot down of a US Navy RQ-4 Global Hawk and revelations the US President cancelled a planned retaliatory action – given growing power disparities, how do nations develop a proportional response?
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The post-Second World War emergence of the US as the pre-eminent global power, replacing the British Empire, saw a dramatic shift in Australia's strategic arrangements as the nation recognised the limitations of the British Empire. In response, Australia's support of the US in both Korea and Vietnam during the Cold War entrenched Australia as one of America's most reliable allies and essential to the enduring stability of the Indo-Pacific.
Years of supplying the material needs of both the Western Allies and the Soviet Union in the conflict against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan enabled the smooth post-war transition of the US to the largest manufacturing economy in the world, buoyed by a wealthy, growing middle class and reinforced by the Cold War arms race that established the nation as the pre-eminent strategic military power.
While the concept of 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD), more colloquially known as nuclear Armageddon, serves as the major deterring factor for armed conflict between the global superpowers and continues to form the basis of maintaining the peace between the US and its major emerging and resurgent peer competitors – China and Russia – power disparities between superpowers and smaller, regional powers has seen a tumultuous period in global history.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the ongoing conflict and instability throughout the Middle East, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman – like scorned lovers, the tensions between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran have long simmered since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 – while periodically tensions boil over, the continuing pursuit of nuclear power by Iran has emboldened the nation to continue its support of terrorist organisations, including Hamas and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) among others throughout the Middle East.
The election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the appointment of hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton signalled an end to the seemingly more conciliatory relationship between the two adversaries – marking a return to the more confrontational style of the preceding Reagan and Bush administrations and has seen a significant rise in the tensions.
The US President's decision to cancel a retaliatory strike following the successful Iranian interception of a US Navy Global Hawk intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platform over the Gulf of Oman shook many within the international strategic affairs, international relations and political community – President Trump's seeming avoidance of conflict has challenged the 'conventional wisdom' on the topic.
Despite this seeming back down, US President Trump reassured the Iranian regime and the broader international community of the US-resolve to mitigate what is seen by many as mounting Iranian aggression, telling NBC last week, "[The plan was] ready to go, subject to my approval. I asked my generals, I want to know something before you go. How many people would be killed, in this case Iranians?
"I thought about it for a second and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead. And I didn't like it, I didn't think, I didn't think it was proportionate."
America's 'proportional response'
The US is widely recognised as the pre-eminent global power – with unrivalled command of the land, sea, air and space domains – with the Middle East forming a core component of the global presence of the US.
In recent months, the tensions between Iran and the West more broadly have begun to bubble over – particularly following a series of attacks on oil and natural gas tankers in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, threatening the global supply of liquid fuel and thus the global economy, prompting the US to increase its presence in the region, to include:
- The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group;
- Four B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers;
- Patriot Missile batteries; and
- An additional 5-10,000 US troops in support of the existing 60-80,000 US troops as part of US Central Command (USCENTCOM).
Iran's response
Iran, in response, has begun a series of re-deployments and mobilisation of both regular Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guard forces towards the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman to enhance the existing air defence, maritime interdiction and ground forces to hinder any potential US retaliation.
Each of America's deployments serves to highlight the overt power and capability of the US Armed Forces, clearly establishing the disparate power levels between the two nations. In contrast, Iran has a combined force of approximately 700,000 troops with a conventional army of 350,000 – with the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps comprising another 125,000 troops and 20,000 personnel in its own navy, according to a recent report by the US Congressional Research Service.
However, unlike the US, Iran's forces are comparatively 'obsolete, obsolescent, or of relatively low quality', relying on equipment acquired during the years prior to the Iranian Revolution in 1979 – while drawing on more modern equipment from allies like Russia. In order to overcome these clear conventional power levels, Iran has sought to develop robust asymmetric capabilities to level the playing field.
Retired US Navy Admiral Jim Stavridis explained in a 2018 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Iran has "exceptionally strong" asymmetric warfare capabilities, including "cyber, swarm small-boat tactics, diesel submarines, special forces, and surface-to-surface cruise missiles are all high-level assets".
"They are also very experienced at employing them in the demanding environment of the Middle East. They would pose a formidable challenge to US forces, although we would ultimately prevail in any confrontation, of course," Stavridis added.
Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif fired back at America's seeming antagonism towards Iran, stating that the US drone was responsible for illegally entering Iranian airspace and that Iran remained committed to peace, stating, "We don’t seek war, but will zealously defend our skies, land and waters."
Further compounding the rising tensions are claims made by Tehran that it would boost its stockpile of enriched uranium beyond the limits agreed to in 2015 as part of the Obama administration's nuclear deal, drawing the ire of the US military and Israel. Nevertheless, while President Trump has so far refrained from unleashing the US military, his tweets have served to put the rogue power on notice.
As tensions continue to mount and events unfold, let us know your thoughts on a proportional response in the comments section below, or get in touch with
Stephen Kuper
Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.
