Global 'economic catastrophe' likely if US attacks Iran
Iran will launch a "disproportionate counter-strike" against the US "and its enablers" if attacked, an Iranian academic claims.
Saturday 20 July 2019 13:27, UK
Tensions continue to escalate between Tehran and Western countries as a UK-registered oil tanker is captured by Iranian forces.
Friday's development came just weeks after Gibraltar authorities and British Royal Marines seized the supertanker Grace 1, suspected of transporting oil to the Syrian regime in breach of international sanctions.
The crisis intensified when President Donald Trump said US forces shot down an Iranian drone after warnings for it to back off were ignored.
It followed Iran shooting down a US drone it said was flying over the country last month. That incident saw Mr Trump call off a retaliatory strike at the last minute because he said too many people would have died.
Here, Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a professor at the University of Tehran, writes about how he thinks the tensions could escalate. His words were written before the British-flagged ship Stena Impero was seized by Iran (scroll down to read Sky News' diplomatic editor Dominic Waghorn's analysis).
While US national security adviser John Bolton and US secretary of state Mike Pompeo push the region towards maximum tension and Donald Trump makes despicable threats to obliterate Iran, the US military has announced its intention to create and lead an anti-Iranian naval coalition in the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, by Mr Trump's own admission, the United States is engaged in economic war against Iranians, as its armed forces have aggressively violated Iranian airspace and territorial waters, resulting in the humiliating downing of its most sophisticated drone by an Iranian surface-to-air missile.
A few naval ships from far-off nations will not change the balance of power, but they will increase confusion and the chances for major regional conflict.
Iranians will also view such an entity as an extension of a belligerent American naval presence.
Since the illegal and tragic US occupation of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been constructing a vast network of underground missile defence facilities alongside the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Gulf of Oman in anticipation of possible US attacks.
Iran and its powerful allies have also developed formidable asymmetrical capabilities across the region. It has both the will and means to decisively engage with a belligerent power.
In order to prevent any appetite for all-out war, Iran will respond to a limited military strike with a massive and disproportionate counter-strike targeting both the aggressor and its enablers.
Regional regimes such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia that facilitate aggression in any way or form should expect the swift destruction of their oil assets and critical infrastructure.
On the other hand, all-out war would mean the obliteration of all oil and gas installations as well as ships on both sides of the Strait of Hormuz.
Under such circumstances, the closure of the Strait would be the least of Mr Bolton's problems.
The Emirati and Saudi regimes would most probably swiftly collapse.
Millions of indentured servants would overrun Abu Dhabi and Dubai while Yemeni forces and their regional allies would overwhelm Saudi Arabia as western occupation forces would be expelled from the region.
Millions of people would stream towards Europe, even as the EU and the rest of the world would be facing an economic catastrophe.
Iran does not welcome confrontation nor does it desire war and its massive and extensive military deterrence is designed to prevent such circumstances.
Instead of pushing the world closer to tragedy, potential US partners should push the US back to the nuclear deal and the negotiating table.
'Warning is overblown'
Sky News' diplomatic editor Dominic Waghorn analyses Professor Marandi's words...
Iran would respond to even a "limited" US attack with a "massive and disproportionate counter-strike targeting both the aggressor and its enablers", according to one Iranian academic.
The view from Tehran in today's opinion piece by Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a professor at the University of Tehran, is sobering.
It presents a bleak picture of any likely conflict that should give US military planners pause for thought as they consider the prospects of war.
Professor Marandi is an expert on US-Iranian relations and a conservative analyst.
Some of what he writes is hyperbolic, some may well be deliberately alarmist designed to deter the US from escalation.
But he is an analyst with close connections to the government in Tehran and his predictions should therefore be taken seriously.
Western analysts would agree with him that any US-Iranian conflict would be asymmetric.
Iran would not fight on the same terms as America and would have a different standard by which it would judge a victory.
Mr Marandi's analysis that Iran has massively increased its military capabilities in the Gulf are in line with similar claims by the Iranian government.
A "vast network of underground missile defence facilities" is highly likely and straight out of the Iranian playbook.
Iran's allies in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah, have built similar subterranean capabilities aimed at Israel.
Neutralising such a threat in the Persian Gulf before it could be used to cripple shipping or threaten Gulf nations across the water would be a massive challenge.
And the threat of a "massive and disproportionate counter-strike" is also a plausible one.
If it comes to war with the US, Iran is likely to attack American allies, hoping they will in turn urge a change of heart in Washington.
Like Mr Marandi, western analysts also predict any hostilities would likely be swiftly expanded.
Iranian allies or proxies from Hezbollah to the Houthis in Yemen could be called upon to attack America's Israeli and Saudi allies respectively.
The Iranian government will not be discouraging observers in Tehran from predicting the direst of consequences, some of which are undoubtedly overblown.
The prediction this would lead to the collapse of Emirati governments and a mass exodus of migrants is not shared by western analysts.
While "economic catastrophe" might be overdoing it, there are however profound concerns about the potential damage to the global economy that could be caused by conflict in one of the most important waterways in the world.
And therein lies the danger for the US.
Should it come to war, the two sides would have very different methods and aims.
Iran will know President Donald Trump would be fighting a war at the same time as a re-election campaign.
Swift, significant damage, shifting US public opinion will be the priority, not overwhelming military victory.
If Iran has prepared for asymmetric warfare as well as Professor Marandi claims, it will have a good chance of turning hearts and minds in America against the president.
Missiles launched from hidden locations turning the Strait of Hormuz into a ship's graveyard before the US can destroy them would force any American president to think again, not least one who campaigned for office on a pledge to end US military adventures in the Middle East.