alliances at sea are tender devices

The Essential Requirement for Maritime Sovereignty

Too many rosy assumptions and peace-time perspectives can leave any nation short when reality and hard decisions break through the white-board ponderings, think tank panelizing, or the faculty lounge chat-fest that all the smartest people in the room are relying on.

To justify smaller budgets and fewer ships at sea, it is easy to come up with comfortable sounding concepts like “1,000 Ship Navy” or “Cooperative Maritime Partnership” to allow assumptions of what other nations might join in peace will be of use in war – that a peacetime PASSEX will result in another escort unit.

Maybe. Maybe not.

The Royal Navy is re-learning this essential reality that goes back centuries; nations have agency, friends can get wobbly, and you need to be ready to do what you need done without any significant outside help.

If you can’t do it yourself, then … well … it may not get done.

Nations often make promises to each other in peace that as things heat up, don’t quite get kept in full. Especially when military conflict is a non-zero probability, a nation’s circle of acquaintances and friends pulls in to an every tighter radius.

In the latest Iranian driven Strait of Hormuz crisis, we see an almost formulaic play unfold before our eyes.

22nd of July:

Britain announced plans Monday to develop and deploy a Europe-led “maritime protection mission” to safeguard shipping in the vital Strait of Hormuz in light of Iran’s seizure of a British-flagged tanker in the waterway last week.

Briefing Parliament on the budding crisis, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt accused Iran of “an act of state piracy” that must be met with a coordinated international reaction.

The foreign secretary said the planned European mission was not part of the U.S. policy of exerting “maximum pressure” on Iran.

It was unclear which countries will join the protection force or how quickly it can be put in place. Hunt said he had consulted with foreign ministers of Oman, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, Spain and Denmark.

23rd of July: Jean-Yves Le Drian on Tuesday told lawmakers a de-escalation of tensions was needed several days after Iran seized a British-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz in what London said was an act of “state piracy”.

“This is why we are setting up a European initiative, with Britain and Germany, to ensure that there is a mission to monitor and observe maritime security in the Gulf,” Le Drian said.

The 27th of July:

Divisions have emerged over plans for a European naval mission in the Persian Gulf, with Britain suggesting the operation would need US support while France and Germany insist it stay independent of America.

In a first sign that the UK may move closer to the US position on Iran under Boris Johnson, the new foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, said a European mission was probably not “viable” without American help.

“I think we do want to see a European-led approach, but that doesn’t seem to me to be viable without American support as well,” Mr Raab told The Times.

That marks a shift from Jeremy Hunt, Mr Raab’s predecessor, who proposed a European naval mission separate from America’s Operation Sentinel.

Both missions are intended to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz from Iranian threats but the US-led operation is widely seen in Europe as part of Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” to force Iranian capitulation on nuclear and regional issues.

“We have made clear that we do not subscribe to the United States’ policy of maximum pressure. Our efforts in the region must be recognisably European,” said Heiko Maas, Germany’s foreign minister.

He added that Germany would not decide whether to join the naval effort until there was “a clear idea of what such a mission would look like”.

France said the European mission would be “the opposite of the American initiative” and was not intended to provoke Iran.

That is pure ISAFication.

For those who served in Afghanistan know, there are USA forces that work under USA rules, and then there are ISAF NATO forces who work under whatever national caveats exist – not unlike the Belgian forces guarding a gate who, if you are attacked 100 meters outside the gate, will not support you because … reasons.

If that is the direction the Europeans are going, then well … we’ve seen this movie before. Good luck with that and pray for peace.

Then today, the European paint-by-numbers mosaic took its expected path;

The administration has formally asked Germany, France and the U.K. to join a naval mission to secure the Strait of Hormuz and combat Iranian aggression. In Berlin, U.S. embassy spokeswoman Tamara Sternberg-Greller added a taunt: “Members of the German government have been clear that freedom of navigation should be protected. Our question is, protected by whom?”

Germany wouldn’t take the bait. It has rejected the request. So the answer is: “Not by us.”

Unlike in France or the U.K., German troop deployments must be approved by parliament, and nearly all political forces there are aligned against taking part in any U.S. mission against Iran.

Most importantly, neither party in the ruling coalition is in favor. The usually pacifist Social Democrats’ argument, voiced by the parliamentary group’s foreign affairs spokesman Nils Schmid, is that any European force in the Persian Gulf would be hostage to a situation over which it has no control. It would essentially mean committing to take part in any conflict on the side of the U.S. “We wouldn’t be able to pull out should the U.S. decide to escalate,” Schmid argued.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party takes a more ambiguous stance. While it’s not interested in joining a U.S.-led operation, it’s open to a European mission.

Of course, most of these nations are all mixed in with each multi-national entity, so to argue left pocket or right pocket is just another way to delay and buy time.

Interestingly, there are some who are thinking NATO might have a play here, but I don’t think on that side of Suez that is very likely. NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg felt the need to make a statement anyway;

“NATO Allies are concerned about the situation in the Gulf & the freedom of navigation is, of course, of great importance…several NATO Allies have already assets in the Gulf, but there has been no request for a NATO mission in the Gulf”

It is helpful to remember that at the dawn of American global presence in the First Barbary War we had an alliance with Sweden and Sicily. When we joined in 1801, Sweden had already been at war with the pirates for half a decade. A year after we arrived, the Swedes made a separate peace and we were left to our own devices.

Such is the nature of such alliances at sea. It is much easier for a nations fleet or ships to leave – like the HMCS UGANDA off the coast of Okinawa – than it is to extract an army in the field.

Alliances at sea are tender devices.

Everyone is re-learning a lesson that will be eternal for any nation’s naval forces; friends are nice to have, but are often fleeting – be prepared to fight alone or go home.

Design your nation’s navy accordingly.

Blog Update

Announcement

Categories

Tags

The Naval Institute Blog is on hold at the moment. Our plan is to move it to the Proceedings site and rename it “Proceedings Blog” in 2024. More information to follow soon!

Back To Top