Crude Strategy: Rethinking the Us Military Commitment to Defend Persian Gulf Oil by Charles L. Glaser & Rosemary Kelanic

Author:Charles L. Glaser & Rosemary Kelanic [Glaser, Charles L. & Kelanic, Rosemary]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781626163348
Google: zVvsjgEACAAJ
Goodreads: 28862405
Publisher: Georgetown University Press
Published: 2016-01-15T07:57:20+00:00

Why There Will Not Be a Major Regional War

The outbreak of a major regional war if the United States withdraws from the Gulf represents a second serious concern. Unlike a regional hegemon, which could manipulate the flow of oil to coerce or punish oil-importing states, a major regional war could inadvertently threaten global oil markets by severely damaging the region’s oil infrastructure and by making the transportation of oil too dangerous. The implicit logic of an enduring presence is that visible US capabilities deter regional states from initiating hostilities against one or more of their rivals. Knowing that the United States has stated its commitment to “security and stability” in the Gulf for more than three decades, and fearful of challenging a vastly superior American conventional force, would-be aggressors have no choice but to put aside their regional ambitions. If US forces left, however, what would deter these states from giving war a chance?

In fact, there is very little chance of major war breaking out and largely for the same reason there is no regional hegemon: None of the possible aspirants has the ability to sustain large-scale offensive operations. Unless a power resolves its internal problems and successfully builds power projection capabilities, the chance of a major regional war will remain very low.

Major war is also unlikely because the regional powers, despite their obvious weaknesses, have the ability to deter each other. Saudi Arabia can rely on deterrence by denial because it is now so densely defended that any large-scale attempt to destroy its forces and occupy its territory would almost surely fail. Even if Iran made initial gains, holding on to new territory would be exceedingly difficult given both its own logistical shortcomings and the necessity of having to rule over a majority-Sunni and inherently hostile population. Iran, however, does have significant defensive advantages that protect it against a large land invasion. It has the largest land forces in the region and can count on favorable geography to discourage would-be attackers from launching major conventional operations. (The last to try was Saddam Hussein in 1980, after Iraq had engaged in a huge military buildup, and Iran was reeling from the Islamic Revolution. Today Saddam is dead, and the Iraqi military is decimated.) Iran can also fall back on deterrence by punishment, given its growing arsenal of ballistic missiles. While these weapons are not particularly accurate, Iran would not need to be precise if it only sought retaliation.

The most vulnerable state is Iraq. As described previously, Iraq’s military is still rebuilding after a decade of civil war, and the central government has not been able to consolidate its rule over the Sunnis in the west or the Kurds in the north. Internal fractures may weaken Iraq, which does not enjoy the natural obstacles that protect Iran and Saudi Arabia. Thus, it may not be able to deter aggression either by denial or punishment. That said, Iraq’s neighbors are very aware of the costs of occupying the country, having witnessed the painful US experience of the last decade.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.