The Strait of Hormuz, apparently, is the most vulnerable strategic point in the current standoff between the United States and Iran. The strait is the gateway to the Arabian Gulf through which 40 percent of the world’s oil requirement is being shipped.
A leading Iranian figure in the Revolutionary Guards recently said that his country would not hesitate to make the strait an inferno for oil tankers if the Iran’s interests were hit over the nuclear dispute. Its closure, however, would be a blow to the economic interests of Iran as well.
President Ahmadinejad has, on the other hand, ruled out Iran adopting any such strategy. It is most likely that Ahmadinejad would keep his word because the safety of the strait is vital to the Iranian economy that badly needs the revenue from its 2 million barrels per day exported across the strait. However nothing could be ruled out in the event of an all-out US offensive against that country. The move would, undoubtedly, imperil the supply of fuel, creating a world crisis.
What would be the reaction of Iranian people to a likely US invasion? Will it be on the lines of the initial response of the Iraqi public to the US invasion of their country? Iraqi people were groaning under an oppressive dictatorship and there is no doubt that some sections of the people welcomed the US intervention at least in the early stage. On the other hand, Iran is a democratic country with full freedom for the people. Therefore the Iranian reaction is likely to be excessively revengeful and may even affect US interests not only in the Middle East but even extend to the American heartland.
I fear that the Iranian response to a US attack would not spare any country in the Gulf. The entire Arabian Gulf including the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman would be turned to a vast minefield that would make seafaring impossible in the region. The economic ramifications of a strangled Arabian Gulf would be terrible to the industrial nations because they will have to go without 18 million barrels of oil a day. However, there is no dearth of optimists who believe that all the talk about striking Iran are just part of a media campaign intended to pressure Iran into surrendering to the West. How I wish the optimists were right.
Russia and the Central Asian republics on the shores of the Caspian Sea have decided to oppose the hostile US move and pave the way for a political solution. In a recent meeting with his French counterpart Sarkozy, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that his country was committed to helping Iran in its pursuit of developing nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes. In another development, President Ahmadinejad and Putin jointly condemned any move for outside intervention in the internal affairs of any country in the region. This was said at a summit meeting of the Caspian Sea states — Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Iran and Russia. The final communiqué issued at the end of the summit was a veiled warning to the United States against any intention to attack Iran. The group’s move aimed at pre-empting any US move to get a foothold in Iranian territories with the aim of getting closer to the Caspian Sea and its enormous petroleum reserves. The Caspian Sea countries, seemingly, believe that the underlying motive for an attack on Iran is the apparent US failure in Iraq. The Caspian group thinks, as are several international analysts, that the US attacked Iraq not to bring democracy to the Arab world, but to grab the huge hydrocarbon reserves in the region. The US is worried about the Caspian Sea because its bed contains the world’s second largest petroleum reserves. What is more, it is virtually under the control of Russia, the traditional US rival.
However, the countries close to Russia have made it abundantly clear that they would not tolerate any US intervention in the internal affairs of the region. It is yet to be seen if this warning would serve as a deterrent to the US and its allies.
