America learned how to guard ships going through the mined Strait of Hormuz in the 1980s during the ‘Tanker War’
Naval mines bobbing in the waters of the Persian Gulf, threatening oil tankers. Iranian speed boats raking ships with machine-gun fire in the Strait of Hormuz. And the United States right in the middle of the fight.
This isn’t the current conflict between Iran and the U.S., paused by a shaky ceasefire. Instead, it’s the “Tanker war,” when Iran targeted shipping during its 1980s war with Iraq, and U.S. warships stepped in to escort Kuwaiti tankers to ensure the flow of crude oil to the global market.
The U.S. could follow that model now and become more aggressive to protect ships passing through the strait, through which 20% of the world’s traded oil and natural gas passes in peacetime. It conducted more limited escorts of ships that came under attack in the Red Sea in recent years, and President Donald Trump said this week that he has ordered the U.S. military to “shoot and kill” small Iranian boats.
But offering escorts in the Strait of Hormuz wouldn’t be so easy. Military technology has advanced since the “Tanker war.” The U.S. hasn’t defined the same clear, narrow goals in this war as it did in the 1980s. And it’s not clear international shippers would feel safe even with an American Navy escort given it is a combatant now.
Small boats, big problems
The U.S. Navy has long been familiar with the small boat tactics deployed by Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which has adapted to international sanctions blocking its ability to access military vessels by using smaller civilian ships for military purposes.
For years, the Guard has used vessels the size of small commercial fishing boats to shadow American aircraft carriers whenever they pass through the strait. Instead of bearing fishing poles, most have Soviet-era heavy machine guns bolted to their bows with a small rocket launcher atop.
Using those small boats, Iran seized two cargo ships this week. A video released by the Guard showed its forces aboard patrol boats dwarfed by the massive container ships. Guardsmen opened fire on the cargo ships, then stormed the vessels, carrying assault rifles.
Beyond their propaganda value, the seizures showed that nearly eight weeks into the war with the U.S. and Israel, with the American Navy imposing a blockade on Iran’s coasts, the Guard can use limited resources to effectively shut down the strait and hold the global economy hostage.
The ‘Tanker war’
The “Tanker war” grew out of the fierce eight-year war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s.
Iraq first targeted Iranian oil infrastructure and tankers in the Persian Gulf. Iran eventually responded with a concerted campaign of its own against ships in the region, including laying mines.
Iraq ultimately would attack over 280 vessels to Iran’s 168, according to the U.S. Naval Institute. But Iran’s use of mines caused havoc in the region.
The U.S., which supported Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with intelligence, weaponry and other aid, launched “Operation Earnest Will” and began escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers — which were reflagged as American.
It wasn’t without danger. The Kuwaiti supertanker Bridgeton struck a mine while under U.S. escort at the start of the operation. An Iraqi missile strike on the USS Stark killed 37 sailors, while an Iranian mine attack wounded 10 on the USS Samuel B. Roberts. The U.S. also mistook a commercial airliner for a fighter jet and shot it down, killing all 290 people aboard Iran Air flight 655.
No easy way out
Despite the challenges, the “Tanker war” operation succeeded as U.S. Navy ships escorted some 70 convoys through the region.
But it would be hard to replicate that today.
The U.S. would have to guarantee that it could create a cordon that Iran couldn’t pierce — a tall order since just one Iranian missile, drone or boat-borne attack would bring back the fear that now pervades the strait.
“I think even if you compare it with the ‘Tanker war,’ I think just in terms of the way military technology has evolved, especially on that asymmetrical side, it’s much more difficult to secure a waterway now than it was then,” said Torbjorn Soltvedt, an analyst with risk intelligence company Verisk Maplecroft.
“Unless there is some sort of agreement or unless the U.S. can significantly curb Iran’s ability to launch fast boats, to launch drones, to launch short-range missiles, then this problem just remains unresolved.”
That’s one of the reasons European countries, despite pressure from Trump, have said they wouldn’t join a mission to escort ships until the war is over.
The Reagan administration also had narrower, clearer goals in its Cold War operation, such as keeping the strait open, according to Tom Duffy, a former U.S. diplomat and naval officer.
“In contrast, the American goals (now) have been sort of a kaleidoscope of regime change to all sorts of very maximalist goals,” said Duffy, who recently published a book called “Tanker War in the Gulf.”
In recent years, the U.S. Navy offered limited escorts of vessels through the Red Sea corridor to protect them from attacks by Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. But the Navy focused on U.S.-flagged ships or those carrying supplies for the American government.
In those operations, the Navy faced its most intense combat at sea since World War II. Using force to make the Strait of Hormuz safe to transit may see a similarly intense fight.
And Duffy noted that it’s not clear the Trump administration even wants the fight.
“There’s a White House statement this week in which we said that the ceasefire is not in jeopardy because they aren’t attacking U.S. and Israeli ships. That’s a fundamental shift,” he said. “That goes past centuries of U.S. practice and statements about the needs for freedom of the sea.”
___
EDITOR’S NOTE — Jon Gambrell, news director for the Gulf and Iran for The Associated Press, has reported from each of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Iran and other locations across the Mideast and the wider world since joining AP in 2006.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com