Military bases or vital waterway: Iran weighs response to US strikes
Iran has vowed to retaliate for US air strikes on its nuclear facilities, and has two main options: attacking American forces in the region, and closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
An advisor to Iran's supreme leader issued a warning on Sunday, saying any US base in the region that takes part in attacks is a "legitimate target".
Disrupting traffic through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for oil and gas, would send energy prices soaring in a global inflationary shock.
Closing the waterway would be "extremely dangerous", Kaja Kallas, the European Union's top diplomat, said on Monday.
AFP looks at the two scenarios and their possible implications.
- Strait of Hormuz -
The narrow, U-shaped seaway snaking between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula is the gateway for Gulf energy shipments to global markets, carrying one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas exports.
Closing the 50-kilometre (30-mile) wide channel could spike oil to $120 a barrel, according to Deutsche Bank research, raising prices of transport, food and utilities around the world.
"It's in the best interest of all Middle Eastern countries to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and prevent any supply disruption," Rystad Energy senior analyst Lu Ming Pang wrote last week.
Currently, traders do not appear too concerned. Brent crude was trading at $76 on Monday, marginally changed from Friday's close.
"Looking at the oil price this morning, it is clear that the oil market doesn't assign a very high probability of (a closure) happening," said Bjarne Schieldrop, chief commodities analyst at SEB bank.
The big question is whether Iran is prepared to detonate this economic hand-grenade. Despite threats in the past, including in 2011 as oil sanctions loomed, it has not pulled the pin.
According to a senior European official, the Iranians do not have the means to block the strait "long-term", but they could hamper shipping.
But "it would be a form of suicide to do that," the official said.
"The effect on Israel would be close to zero, the effect on themselves immense, as well as on the United States, Europe and China."
Iranian forces have nearly 200 fast patrol boats that can fire anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, plus mine-laying vessels, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
But the US Fifth Fleet, a major naval force, is stationed across the Gulf in Bahrain, and Iran remains under daily fire from Israeli warplanes and drones.
Iran's own energy exports, in spite of sanctions, remain an important source of income for the world's ninth-biggest oil-producing country.
- US bases -
With United States military bases spread around the Gulf countries to Iran's west, there is no shortage of potential targets.
Kuwait, in a legacy of the 1990 Gulf war, houses about 13,500 US forces, while the biggest US base in the region is Al Udeid in Qatar.
The US Fifth Fleet, covering the Gulf, Red Sea and parts of the Indian Ocean, is based in Bahrain, and about 3,500 US personnel are stationed at Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.
In Iraq, US troops are deployed in various installations, including the Al-Asad and Arbil air bases, as part of an anti-jihadist coalition.
Iran-backed Iraqi armed factions have threatened Washington's interests should it join Israel's campaign, having targeted them in previous years.
Increased US involvement in the Iran-Israel war risks attacks "on US interests, US bases and such across the region", said Renad Mansour, senior research fellow at Chatham House.
"The US attack on Iran has now meant that this war is between Israel, the United States and Iran, which means that across the region, Iran may seek to target the US," he added.
However, this option is also fraught for Iran as it risks isolating itself from the powerful Gulf monarchies that enjoy good relations with Washington.
"Tehran is unlikely to strike Gulf Arab states," said Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at King's College London.
"Even as it sees the UAE and Saudi Arabia as quiet enablers of the US-Israeli axis, Iran understands that any attack on their soil would likely unify them against it and open the door for greater American military presence.
"Instead, Iran may issue veiled warnings to these states, use regional proxies to pressure them, or engage in cyber or intelligence disruptions targeting their interests -- maintaining plausible deniability while raising the cost of involvement."
th-rh/ami/jsa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
Iran's Weak Attack Is an Offramp. Trump Should Take It.
So far, Iran's ballistic missile attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday appears to have been more of a face-saving measure for Tehran than an opening salvo for full-blown war with America. With no reports of American casualties or severe damage, the attack presents President Trump with a clear offramp from tit-for-tat tensions. He should take it. There's now an opportunity for both sides to restart diplomatic efforts, rather than escalate hostilities. It's not surprising that Iran's leaders felt they had to do something in retaliation for the U.S. bombing mission against three of their nuclear sites over the weekend. What they evidently came up with was an underwhelming missile strike on one of the most fortified U.S. military bases in the world. Tehran warned the Qataris that the strikes were coming, ensuring that its short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles would be intercepted by American air defense systems — which they were. In a social media post, Trump seemed to seize the chance to cast Iran's 'very weak response' on the base as more symbolic than destructive, even thanking Iran for giving the U.S. notice: 'Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.' U.S. forces in the region must remain on high alert, of course. But if Monday's attack is any guide, Tehran does not want to enter a wider war with the United States, and its leaders, too, may yet choose to pursue a concerted diplomatic effort with the United States to discuss the future of whatever is left of its nuclear program. Several rounds of talks this year between the United States and Iran have gone nowhere, and Trump's latest efforts to talk to Iran after Israel's began its air campaign this month reportedly fizzled. But the threat of war may propel both sides to work more earnestly to get back to the negotiating table. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Marjorie Taylor Greene says Trump voters wanted ‘no more foreign wars' and Iran strikes expose MAGA divide
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene made clear she is at odds with the president and other Republicans who support an aggressive posture against Iran, acknowledging that there's a 'very big divide' in the party over the issue and that her position opposing foreign wars is becoming 'more popular' among the base. 'I got elected on the exact same campaign promises that President Trump got elected on. We promised no more foreign wars, no more regime change,' Greene told CNN on Monday. Earlier in the day, she wrote in a lengthy post on X that Trump's decision to authorize US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend 'feels like a complete bait and switch' on the MAGA agenda. The US strikes in Iran further inflamed a growing divide within Trump's party, between those cheering on intervention in the conflict, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, and those warning against engaging in forever wars, like Greene and Rep. Thomas Massie, as well as influential conservative voices like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk. Asked if Trump risks alienating his MAGA base, Greene acknowledged a 'very big divide' among Republican voters, noting younger generations are more 'skeptical.' 'We've been lied to too many times, and I think it's right to be skeptical,' she said. Greene, who has consistently opposed funding Ukraine's fight against Russian aggression, said she thinks her position opposing US involvement in foreign conflicts is becoming 'more popular' among Republicans. 'If this war were to continue, and we were to see, sadly, see American troops coming home with on flag-draped coffins, I think you would see Americans totally saying the same thing I'm saying, I hope that never happens again,' she said, adding, 'I think President Trump has us on a path to peace.' She said she hopes the sharp divide in the GOP over involvement in Iran won't hurt the party in next year's midterm elections, but she emphasized that 'Republicans need to earn Americans' votes.' 'I don't think we're earning our votes in the midterm, and that's on Congress,' she said, urging her colleagues to pass Trump's massive domestic policy bill that is the subject of tense negotiations between Republican factions. Greene said she had not yet been briefed on the situation in Iran and the threat posed by its nuclear program, but brought up the start of the Iraq War, which engendered distrust in many Americans after the revelation that Iraq did not have the weapons of mass destruction that the US had used to justify it. 'We have people suffering today with terrible PTSD and lifelong injuries from these wars that we should have never gotten involved in,' she said, emphasizing her belief that entering into foreign conflicts is not at the top of most Americans' minds. 'When most Americans are walking around, they're not thinking about Iran,' she said, later adding, 'They're very much focused on their American life and their American problems and that's exactly what they should be focused on.' Following an Iranian missile strike on a US airbase in Qatar on Monday, Greene said, 'We saw President Trump's measured response,' pointing to the president's online messages urging peace in the region, which she said was 'exactly the same messaging that we elected him for.' She later brushed off the 'no kings' protest movement staged in opposition to Trump earlier this month, 'President Trump is not a king. MAGA is not a cult. And I'm entitled to my own opinion.' 'I can support the president at the same time as I say, I don't think we should have foreign wars. And I can tell you right now, President Trump doesn't want to stay in a foreign war,' she added. Though Greene disagrees with Trump ordering strikes in Iran, she wouldn't go so far as some of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle in saying Congress should have voted to authorize the move, noting that former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush also authorized attacks without congressional approval. 'The president, by law, can lead. He's the commander in chief,' she said. Greene acknowledged that Congress is constitutionally required to authorize military action if the conflict lasts more than 60 days, but she cast doubt on whether lawmakers could get that done now. 'Let's be realistic, Congress isn't very good at doing very many things,' she said, explaining, 'We're fighting over certain parts of the big, beautiful bill and trying to get an appropriations budget passed. So I don't know what a vote would look like here in Congress.' Asked if she had talked to Trump about Iran since he authorized the strikes, Greene answered, 'He's been pretty busy.'
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Marjorie Taylor Greene says Trump voters wanted ‘no more foreign wars' and Iran strikes expose MAGA divide
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene made clear she is at odds with the president and other Republicans who support an aggressive posture against Iran, acknowledging that there's a 'very big divide' in the party over the issue and that her position opposing foreign wars is becoming 'more popular' among the base. 'I got elected on the exact same campaign promises that President Trump got elected on. We promised no more foreign wars, no more regime change,' Greene told CNN on Monday. Earlier in the day, she wrote in a lengthy post on X that Trump's decision to authorize US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend 'feels like a complete bait and switch' on the MAGA agenda. The US strikes in Iran further inflamed a growing divide within Trump's party, between those cheering on intervention in the conflict, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, and those warning against engaging in forever wars, like Greene and Rep. Thomas Massie, as well as influential conservative voices like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk. Asked if Trump risks alienating his MAGA base, Greene acknowledged a 'very big divide' among Republican voters, noting younger generations are more 'skeptical.' 'We've been lied to too many times, and I think it's right to be skeptical,' she said. Greene, who has consistently opposed funding Ukraine's fight against Russian aggression, said she thinks her position opposing US involvement in foreign conflicts is becoming 'more popular' among Republicans. 'If this war were to continue, and we were to see, sadly, see American troops coming home with on flag-draped coffins, I think you would see Americans totally saying the same thing I'm saying, I hope that never happens again,' she said, adding, 'I think President Trump has us on a path to peace.' She said she hopes the sharp divide in the GOP over involvement in Iran won't hurt the party in next year's midterm elections, but she emphasized that 'Republicans need to earn Americans' votes.' 'I don't think we're earning our votes in the midterm, and that's on Congress,' she said, urging her colleagues to pass Trump's massive domestic policy bill that is the subject of tense negotiations between Republican factions. Greene said she had not yet been briefed on the situation in Iran and the threat posed by its nuclear program, but brought up the start of the Iraq War, which engendered distrust in many Americans after the revelation that Iraq did not have the weapons of mass destruction that the US had used to justify it. 'We have people suffering today with terrible PTSD and lifelong injuries from these wars that we should have never gotten involved in,' she said, emphasizing her belief that entering into foreign conflicts is not at the top of most Americans' minds. 'When most Americans are walking around, they're not thinking about Iran,' she said, later adding, 'They're very much focused on their American life and their American problems and that's exactly what they should be focused on.' Following an Iranian missile strike on a US airbase in Qatar on Monday, Greene said, 'We saw President Trump's measured response,' pointing to the president's online messages urging peace in the region, which she said was 'exactly the same messaging that we elected him for.' She later brushed off the 'no kings' protest movement staged in opposition to Trump earlier this month, 'President Trump is not a king. MAGA is not a cult. And I'm entitled to my own opinion.' 'I can support the president at the same time as I say, I don't think we should have foreign wars. And I can tell you right now, President Trump doesn't want to stay in a foreign war,' she added. Though Greene disagrees with Trump ordering strikes in Iran, she wouldn't go so far as some of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle in saying Congress should have voted to authorize the move, noting that former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush also authorized attacks without congressional approval. 'The president, by law, can lead. He's the commander in chief,' she said. Greene acknowledged that Congress is constitutionally required to authorize military action if the conflict lasts more than 60 days, but she cast doubt on whether lawmakers could get that done now. 'Let's be realistic, Congress isn't very good at doing very many things,' she said, explaining, 'We're fighting over certain parts of the big, beautiful bill and trying to get an appropriations budget passed. So I don't know what a vote would look like here in Congress.' Asked if she had talked to Trump about Iran since he authorized the strikes, Greene answered, 'He's been pretty busy.'
