(Defense News) Michael Eisenstadt - The U.S. Navy has had a carrier in the Gulf, on and off, for more than 20 years now, and it has maintained a nearly continuous presence there since 2010, while a second carrier in the Gulf of Oman supports operations in Afghanistan. Conventional wisdom says the presence of an American aircraft carrier in the Gulf deters Iranian adventurism or aggression. But the presence of a carrier in the Gulf enabled Iran to hold a U.S. strategic asset at risk. (Senior Iranian military officials have said as much on several occasions.) Any time a carrier operated in the Gulf, it operated within range of a large number of highly capable Iranian anti-ship systems, including modern anti-ship cruise missiles, wake homing torpedoes and rising mines. In a conflict with Iran, there is a good chance that the carrier would sustain some damage, enabling Iran to claim a propaganda victory as the first country to bloody a U.S. carrier in combat since World War II. Against this background, sailing aircraft carriers up and down Iran's coast accomplished very little, except to put U.S. service members and critical assets at risk. Without a carrier to target, Iran would have fewer ways to escalate after a preventive strike. The absence of a carrier would also reduce the likelihood that in the aftermath of an Israeli strike, Iran could retaliate in a way that inflicted significant losses on the U.S., thereby sparking a crisis in U.S.-Israel relations. The writer is a senior fellow and director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
2013-03-13 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive