Observing the Naval Surge To The Middle East

The news of naval activity from the Middle East region is beginning to reach a point of disinformation, so we think it might be time to provide analysis regarding what is going on throughout the Middle East region. In a quiet way, major naval activity is taking place that is not being highlighted in the open source, and outright ignored in the media. What we find interesting is the naval activity represents the largest Naval buildup around the Middle East region since late 2003, particularly east of the Suez Canal, however because it is not the US Navy the media is ignoring this massive buildup of force.

As we observed back in January, we predicted that by late March there would be an enormous naval surge to the Middle East region. Our predictions have proven right, but due to the nature of the naval buildup, there is very little discussion of it. There is no question the build up represents scheduled deployments and alliance naval activity of a routine nature. There is also no question that the tension level for war is growing, and we can now safely say the date being observed in the region where many expect war to break out is April 6th.

What will replace it, nearly everyone in Beirut speculated to me, is the resumption of the Hizballah-Israel war that ravaged Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Some Lebanese even have a precise date for it: April 6 — the day Israel's biggest emergency drill ever starts, when they believe the Israeli Defense Forces juggernaut will roll across the border to finish the job they should have during the 34-day conflict. Although, mind you, there's not a thread of evidence that the Israelis are really going to invade.

Robert Baer is an excellent reporter, and his TIME magazine article captures the essence of the tension currently in Lebanon. Threats of war and rumors of war currently dominate the headlines in Lebanon, and in response the government has rescheduled the presidential election once again, this time until April 22nd. Considering the degree of tension, it is legitimate to ask the question whether there will be a presidential election or whether a war will need to be fought first. The only problem with the question of war is, while it is probable all nations are ready to get it over with, nobody wants to start it. Whether war actually takes place in the region is anyones guess, but there is no question those who expect to be involved are preparing themselves.

The reason the Naval activity is not getting a lot of attention is because the enormous naval buildup around the Middle East is European, not US, in nature. For the first time since before September 11th, 2001, there are more ships from European Navies in 5th Fleet Area of Operation than ships of the US Navy, and we observe at least 4 more major French ships will either enter or return to the theater over the next few weeks. The buildup of Naval power is striking not simply in its quantity, but also in its quality, including everything from additional minesweepers, a Mine Warfare Command Vessel, the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious (R06), and 2 large French Naval aviation ships with expeditionary capabilities.

We observe in the hyper tension environment of the Middle East that many have the expectation that a Naval buildup implies a strike against Iran could come at any time. Readers of this blog know we have no such belief, in fact until we see two MEUs operating in the Persian Gulf we are not ready to believe the US Navy would even entertain the idea of any such attack, as we believe the Navy requires two MEUs to secure the Strait of Hormuz. However, given the nature of the European naval surge not only east of the Suez Canal, but also in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, we do believe both the United States and Europe is building up a massive naval force with the intention of deterrence.

Based on some of the recent strange naval news from the region, we make the following observations based on historical patterns and evolving political events.

The story out of Iran that a submarine and a destroyer recently crossed the Suez canal has all the signs of potentially true, but as usual the Iranians are simply making news where news doesn't exist. Rather than the suggestion the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) crossed Suez, as implied with a stock photo of the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) from 2003 in this story, we believe what has actually happened is the USS Albany (SSN 753) and the USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) attached to the Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group that has been in the Mediterranean Sea crossed into the Red Sea. People might ask why Iran would think such naval movements is news, well the answer is actually pretty easy to explain.

Iran can't track modern submarines. Iran simply lacks the technology and the training necessary to track modern western submarines, and that has been the case for years now. While Russia sold Kilo submarines to Iran back in the 90s, one of the little discussed details of that deal is that it was brokered by Vice President at the time Al Gore, and Al Gore let the deal from Russia take place as long as Iran couldn't get sophisticated Russian sonar equipment. Russia wasn't offering sophisticated sonars anyway, and needed the submarine sales badly at the time, so they took the horse trade.

In effect, Iran has some of the worst sonar equipment of any Gulf nation, certainly not to the quality of Saudi Arabia or Egypt, and they simply can't detect a US submarine unless it crosses the Suez Canal. Might sound unbelievable to some, but thus is the nature of export restrictions and careful security of sonar equipment, of which most nations simply don't want to share because it exposes their own capabilities. The Chinese have written extensively about this, including their frustration with Russia who hasn't shared their most sophisticated sonar systems. Most people don't realize that small detail explains why Iran builds small mini submarines rather than large submarines, small submarines don't need sophisticated sonar while large submarines do to be effective, so it simply makes more sense for Iran to focus its domestic submarine production on what is effective.

We think it is both ironic and hilarious the Iranian news agency would put a picture of the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) in its news article, because it is a better than average bet the Iranians have absolutely no clue where the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) is. It is also a better than average bet that if the Captain of the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) raised his periscope, he could see land... in Iran.

Bottom line on the US Navy deployments, the Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group is simply doing what would be expected, and in an indirect way the Iranian news report simply highlights what would be an expected behavior for a submarine crossing the Suez, always with a destroyer escort. For the rest of the US Navy we observe the following.

The USS Nassau (LHA 4), USS Nashville (LPD 13), USS Philippine Sea (CG 58), and USS Ross (DDG 71), all part of the Nassau ESG, have taken up station in the eastern Mediterranean Sea while tensions are high. We do not speculate on the USS Ashland (LSD 48), which may head towards the east coast of Africa to do what LSDs do lately, support anti-piracy operations. The USS San Jacinto (CG 56), part of the Truman Carrier Strike Group, has been operating in the Mediterranean Sea region since it deployed with the Truman CSG last year, and remains conducting security operational training in the area. The Nassau ESG is not carrying Marines, so its mission capabilities are clearly defined as defensive and limited to being a support element for evacuation of Lebanon should hostilities break out. We believe the decision to station these ships there is intentional due to their lack of Marines, noting that the sizable UNIFIL force and enormous number of European Naval assets at sea in the Mediterranean Sea offers the Europeans credible capabilities and contingencies to support their own troops already on the ground in UNIFIL should hostilities actually break out near Israel.

As our most recent Order of Battle noted, the US has the Truman Carrier Strike Group and the Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Group in the Middle East Gulf region. Many of the Truman CSG assets are currently operating near Somalia as the African nation troops move into position. There are also a considerable number of NATO naval vessels in that region, including ships from Germany, France, Canada, the Netherlands, and Denmark as noted in our Order of Battle. While we have no confirmation whether it is happening, one pattern we have observed is the use of the regional LSD, in this case the USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41), acting as an offshore staging base for monitoring pirate activity. The USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) will soon be replaced by the USS Oak Hill (LSD 51) in the next few weeks.

Finally, we observe the Orion 08 deployment continues in the Indian Ocean, and the force is beefing up as Harriers return to Lusty. We still find it very strange that the British force deployed with Minesweepers, but we chalk it up to a high degree of preparation related to the tensions surrounding Iran. We noted the recent news from across the pond that the British are making contingency plans should a tanker war scenario return to the Persian Gulf, but we simply don't believe Iran is that stupid. While it might sound really scary for Iran to close down the Strait of Hormuz, we don't rule out the possibility that China wouldn't turn around and invade Iran if they tried it. It is one thing to want to piss off the United States, but we believe it would be a mistake of profound miscalculation to get between China and what they see as their oil, particularly right before the Olympic games.

While we don't see how or where war is coming from, we find it noteworthy we are in the midst of the largest European naval surge to the Middle East in the 21st century and nobody is talking about it, and we would bet many of the worlds sharpest military observers barely noticed it.