Is a Naval Blockade of Iran Possible?

The Bush Administration, which has no credibility these days, is difficult to read because there is so little connection between its rhetoric and its actions. All we know is that in general Bush tends to give diplomacy short shrift before leaning towards military action. Dave Lindorff of The Nation has a post on some recent developments:

As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have issued orders for a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

(snip)

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received recent orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.

October 21. Is this Rove's October surprise? What a raw and brazen interference with the Nov. 7 midterm elections this would be. Iran is not an emergency but Bush is good at creating fear. Let's continue with the story from The Nation:

The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.

It is the obligation of Congress, and particularly the Senate, to be involved in foreign policy. Are the rubber-stamping members of Congress going to even bother to vote or make their voices heard on any of this? Bush could launch a war without any congressional authorization. Here's more from The Nation:

Even as Bush was making not-so-veiled threats at the UN, his former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, a sharp critic of any unilateral US attack on Iran, was in Norfolk, not far from the Eisenhower, advocating further diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran's nuclear program--itself tantalizing evidence of the policy struggle over whether to go to war, and that those favoring an attack may be winning that struggle.

"I think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran," says Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against US law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more options than we do: They can activate Hezbollah; they can organize riots all over the Islamic world, including Pakistan, which could bring down the Musharraf government, putting nuclear weapons into terrorist hands; they can encourage the Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops; they can blow up oil pipelines and shut the Persian Gulf." Most of the major oil-producing states in the Middle East have substantial Shiite populations, which has long been a concern of their own Sunni leaders and of Washington policy-makers, given the sometimes close connection of Shiite populations to Iran's religious rulers.

Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm antiship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian antiship weapons, against which the Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush MO to date.

(snip)

One solid indication that the dispatch of the Eisenhower is part of a force buildup would be if the carrier Enterprise--currently in the Arabian Sea, where it has been launching bombing runs against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which is at the end of its normal six-month sea tour--is kept on station instead of sent back to the United States. Arguing against simple rotation of tours is the fact that the Eisenhower's refurbishing and its dispatch were rushed forward by at least a month. A report from the Enterprise on the Navy's official website referred to its ongoing role in the Afghanistan fighting, and gave no indication of plans to head back to port. The Navy itself has no comment on the ship's future orders.

We now have ships in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea and we have our military on the west and east side of Iran. The northern border of Iran is less covered but in the last eighteen months, U.S. military officials have been trying to get permission for military bases in that region and it appears we at least have overflight permission. A possibility designed for election year games is a naval blockade. We know that Bush wants to impose sanctions against Iran after a very poor diplomatic effort over the summer that we now know was largely designed to fail. A naval blockade can be regarded as an act of war but it can also be sold, at least briefly, as simply an enforcement of sanctions, if this is where things are going.

The political advantage of a naval blockade is simply the illusion of trying to come to a peaceful resolution with Iran while trying to scare the daylights out of the American voter (would Karl Rove dare to invoke the image of Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis?). If the blockade is announced two weeks before the elections, it would be designed to scare voters before they have time to think of how stupid the whole thing is. There is no emergency with Iran. Diplomacy, real diplomacy, hasn't even been tried. Tens of millions of Americans would see through the nonsense but it may be a close call whether a majority of voters would see through such a manipulative and political outrage. The real risk is whether Iran is stupid enough to rise to the bait. Bush clearly wants Iran to start a war. But there are still powerful voices in the military and Washington calling for a more rational course.

At the very least, Americans ought to recognize how dangerous Bush's games have increasingly become. If we include the Caspian Sea, the northern side of Iran includes Russia as one of the countries on Iran's borders; if we forget Iran for a moment, there is a growing risk that Bush and his incompetent friends may be pushing us back into a Cold War with Russia. Because of oil, the power of Russia is rising again and Bush has badly handled our relationship with Russia over the last six years (like so much in the Bush years, Russia represents an area of criminal negligience on the part of the Bush Administration).

Whether we have a naval blockade, an election year attack or just more posturing by Bush, everything Bush says should be regarded with skepticism. The last thing we need is a third war at this time and if Republicans in Congress go along with this nonsense, they have no business being in office.

Whatever happens, it's important for voters to remember that Bush has repeatedly shown he cannot be trusted. He's not honest, he is incompetent and his judgment has repeatedly proven to be wrong. Bush is the boy who has cried wolf too long.