Latest news with #Sahand
Indian Express
07-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
With every fragile ‘peace' in Middle East, the West sows seeds of a conflict
I have followed the recent '12-day war' in the Middle East through a 50-year-old personal prism. My interest in petroleum and a postgraduate thesis on oil for goods barter trade by Iran was sparked by the Yom Kippur War between Egypt /Syria and Israel in 1973. The war triggered a four-fold increase in the international price of oil and global stagflation. My first job in the Petroleum sector with Phillips Petroleum in London (after a short stint in the IAS ) was in 1980, a year after the Shah of Iran was deposed by Ayatollah Khomeini and months before Iran and Iraq commenced a bloody and inconclusive eight-year war. The Iranian revolution had doubled the price of oil and set off another global stagflation and the Iran-Iraq war embroiled the US when in April 1988, it sank the Iranian frigate 'Sahand' after a US frigate had hit an Iranian mine in the Straits of Hormuz. I am reminded of 'Operation Praying Mantis' every time there is talk of choking the straits through which pass nearly 20 per cent of internationally traded crude oil and one-third of Liquefied Natural gas (LNG). In 1990 when President Saddam Hussein moved his tanks into Kuwait and aimed SCUD missiles at the Shell-Saudi Refinery and Petrochemical complex in Al Jubail on the East coast of Saudi Arabia, I was in the Middle East Region of Shell International based in London. Shell Management decided that the head office must support the evacuation of Shell expatriates from the complex and as the lowest rank executive on the ME Regions totem pole, I was dispatched into the war zone. I could write much about the three days I spent surrounded by agitated rednecks desperate to get out of the region but that would take too many lines. Suffice it to say, I gained first-hand insight into the mental and emotional turmoil caused by rumours, misinformation and fear. More than a decade later in 2003, when President George W Bush ordered a US-led coalition to overthrow the Baathist Government of Saddam Hussein on grounds that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction' and was an accomplice of the al Qaeda terrorist group — allegations dismissed by the 9/11 Commission in 2004 — I was with the Shell Group in India. Although no longer in the thick of events, I was impacted. The international price of crude oil crossed into triple digits and the newly elected UPA government of PM Manmohan Singh reintroduced administered pricing of petroleum products. That put paid to Shell India's plans to break into the petroleum main fuels markets. Today I observe the fifth major eruption in the region — I define 'major' loosely — conflict has been endemic and continuous in the region so the distinction between 'major' and the rest is subjective — from the vantage point of an armchair commentator. I am no longer directly involved with the petroleum Industry nor engaged with the ME Region but I have the luxury to reflect on this half-century of involvement. I have read countless commentaries on the current state of affairs. Many questions have been raised. What is the extent of damage caused to Iran's nuclear programme? Does it still have fissile material and the centrifuges and equipment to enrich this feedstock and build systems to deliver nuclear warheads? Does it have the capability (or indeed the inclination — their leaders cannot have forgotten Operation Mantis) to choke the Straits of Hormuz? How stable is the ceasefire given Israel's PM Netanyahu has not achieved his goal of regime change? What about President Trump? Will he green-light a second round of bombing by Israel? What is China's game plan? And many more. Experts have weighed in with the answers. I too have views but on reflection, I hesitate to proffer them. For if there is one lesson that a historical overview throws up it is that ultimately the answers will not be derived through political, economic, strategic and humanitarian logic but by the ambitions of autocratic individuals. These individuals may well craft their responses around the enlightenment ideals of freedom, democracy, social justice and human rights but that is optics. The drivers of actions are subjective predilections. Few commentators have an insight into the psychological make-up of these leaders. I certainly do not. One further thought comes to the fore on reflection. All five major wars have been brought to a close either through diplomacy or military might/stalemate. But the closures have been fragile. For, the root cause of war has never been adequately addressed. I read Henry Kissinger's book 'CRISIS: The Anatomy of Two Major Foreign Policy Crisis' which described the telephonic diplomacy that brought about the ceasefire in 1973. Seen through the narrow lens of the objective to end hostilities, it was a success. All combatants salvaged something out of the fighting and America kept its hegemonic foothold in the region. But the plight of the Palestinian refugees was not on the agenda. Similarly, the Iran-Iraq war ended with no effort to address the core issues that triggered the conflict. It drew to a halt because both sides were exhausted and could no longer accept the high death toll. In a comparable vein, the two Gulf wars ended because the immediate objectives were met (viz the defeat of the Iraqi army and the execution of Saddam Hussein). The geopolitical, economic, religious and ideological cleavages that triggered the wars were tackled only in passing. Today, the Western world is focused on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is a good reason for this focus. Were such weapons to fall into the 'wrong hands' it could have catastrophic consequences. But, by failing to use their heft to address humanitarian needs, the genocide in Gaza, by ignoring the cascading anger and resentment they are in fact creating the conditions for this proliferation. Commentators can speculate but those with a historical perspective know this is the consequential reality. The writer is former Chairman of Shell India. Views are personal
Time of India
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
How strong is Iran's Navy and can it really block the world's oil lifeline?
Amid rising tensions with the U.S., Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global oil route. Despite not being a naval superpower, Iran's navy, divided into IRIN and IRGCN, employs asymmetric warfare strategies. With diverse vessels and strategically located bases, Iran aims to defend its coastlines and disrupt enemy movements, particularly in the Strait. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Iran's Naval Power: Strength in Asymmetry Fleet Composition: Submarines, Frigates, and Drones Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Pic credit: Global Firepower Ranking IRGC Navy: The Real Threat in Hormuz Bandar Abbas: Main naval HQ and submarine production center Jask: Iran's front-line base in the Gulf of Oman Chabahar: Southern outpost with access to the Indian Ocean Bandar-e Anzali: Northern base protecting oil assets Imam Ali Base (Chabahar): Offensive and patrol operations hub Kharg Island: Guards Persian Gulf oil infrastructure Amid escalating tensions with the U.S., Iran has once again threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz—a narrow chokepoint through which nearly 20% of global oil and gas flows. The threat follows Washington's decision to support Israeli military actions against Iran, stoking fears of a broader regional conflict that could disrupt global energy has put Iran's naval power under fresh scrutiny. How capable is Iran's navy, and could it realistically block the world's most critical oil artery?According to Global Firepower's 2024 rankings, Iran's navy stands 37th among 145 countries—positioning it as a mid-tier force with regional reach. Despite lacking the scale of world naval superpowers, Iran has spent decades cultivating a strategy rooted in asymmetric warfare, indigenous technology, and geographic naval forces are divided into two main branches: The Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (IRIN) – the official naval arm with over 18,500 personnel and more than 100 vessels, including submarines, frigates, and destroyers. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) – a separate and agile force focused on fast-attack crafts, mines, and hit-and-run tactics, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz. Together, these forces represent a layered defense system built since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, focused heavily on defending Iran's southern coastlines and disrupting enemy movements in nearby waters, according to the per Global Fire Power database, Iran's conventional naval fleet boasts an increasingly diverse arsenal: Destroyers & Frigates: Modern warships like Sahand, Zagros, and Zulfiqar are equipped with precision missile systems and intelligence-gathering tools. The Alvand and Moj-class frigates, some domestically built, support medium-range has 25 submarines including 3 Tareq-class (Kilo-class) diesel-electric subs for mine-laying and missile launches, 2 Fateh-class attack submarines with torpedo and missile capabilities, up to 23 Ghadir-class midget subs for shallow-water operations and special missions, and 1 Nahang-class sub for special forces transport, Euronews IRGC Navy is said to pose the real threat in the Strait of Hormuz. As per the report, it doesn't rely on large ships—it uses speed and surprise. Its fleet includes10 Houdong missile boats, 25 Peykaap II boats, 10 MK13 fast attack crafts, special units for reconnaissance, cyber warfare, and mine tactics focus on swarm attacks, sea mines, drones, and kamikaze-style speedboats, designed to overwhelm larger, slower enemy vessels—particularly in narrow chokepoints like Hormuz, the report has also reportedly strategically located naval bases to protect both its northern (Caspian Sea) and southern (Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman) fronts:Additional IRGC-specific bases, such as Sirik, Tamb al-Kubra, and Abu Musa Island, house missile defense systems and underground bunkers near the Strait of Hormuz—bolstering Iran's control over the region, claimed the report.
