U.S. wants military coalition to safeguard waters off Iran, Yemen

By Phil Stewart

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford arrives to hold a classified briefing on Iran, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, for members of the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. May 21, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States hopes to enlist allies over the next two weeks or so in a military coalition to safeguard strategic waters off Iran and Yemen, where Washington blames Iran and Iran-aligned fighters for attacks, the top U.S. general said on Tuesday.

 

Under the plan, which has only been finalised in recent days, the United States would provide command ships and lead surveillance efforts for the military coalition. Allies would patrol waters near those U.S. command ships and escort commercial vessels with their nation's flags.

 

Marine General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, articulated those details to reporters following meetings on Tuesday about it with acting U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

 

Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday the U.S. had hammered out a plan under which an international military coalition would safeguard strategic waters off both Iran and Yemen, where Washington blames Iran and Iran-backed fighters for attacks. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

"We're engaging now with a number of countries to see if we can put together a coalition that would ensure freedom of navigation both in the Straits of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab," said Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"And so I think probably over the next couple of weeks we'll identify which nations have the political will to support that initiative and then we'll work directly with the militaries to identify the specific capabilities that'll support that," he said.

 

"We're engaging now with a number of countries to see if we can put together a coalition that would ensure freedom of navigation both in the Straits of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab," Dunford said.

 

"And so I think probably over the next couple of weeks we'll identify which nations have the political will to support that initiative and then we'll work directly with the militaries to identify the specific capabilities that'll support that."

 

Iran has long threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which almost a fifth of the world's oil passes, if it was unable to export its oil, something U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has sought as a way to pressure Tehran to renegotiate a deal on its nuclear programme.

 

But the U.S proposal for an international coalition to safeguard shipping in the Strait, at the mouth of the Gulf, has been gaining momentum since attacks in May and June against oil tankers in Gulf waters. Last month, Iran shot down a U.S. drone near the Strait, prompting President Donald Trump to order retaliatory air strikes, only to call them off.

 

WATERS OFF YEMEN

Although U.S. officials had publicly discussed plans to safeguard the Strait, Dunford's disclosure that the coalition would also seek to bolster security in the Bab al-Mandab off Yemen appeared to be a new element.

 

The United States, as well as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have long fretted over attacks by Iran-aligned Houthi fighters in the narrow Bab al-Mandab waterway, which connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea.

 

Nearly 4 million barrels of oil are shipped daily through the Bab al-Mandab to Europe, the United states and Asia plus commercial goods.

 

Dunford said the United States would provide "command and control" ships but said the goal would be for other countries to provide vessels to patrol waters between those command ships.

 

The third part of the mission would involve coalition members escorting their countries' commercial vessels.

 

"The expectation is that the actual patrolling and escorts would be done by others," he said. Dunford said the size of the campaign could be adjusted based on the number of countries that commit to it.

 

"This will be scaleable, right? So with a small number of contributors, we can have a small mission. And we'll expand that as the number of nations that are willing to participate identify themselves," he said.

 

(Reporting by Phil Stewart in Washington; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-10

 Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Hopefully, Donald will send Ivanka - like he did so impressively at the G20 - to hammer together a strong coalition.  You wouldn't want your allies to show up with the wrong handbag.  :-)

 

Seriously, I feel sorry for these career military leaders who have to deal with a reality TV star and real estate salesperson as their commander-in-chief. 

1 hour ago, helpisgood said:

Hopefully, Donald will send Ivanka - like he did so impressively at the G20 - to hammer together a strong coalition.  You wouldn't want your allies to show up with the wrong handbag.  ????

 

Seriously, I feel sorry for these career military leaders who have to deal with a reality TV star and real estate salesperson as their commander-in-chief. 

I agree however I would have added many more descriptive adjectives to your accurate summary of his experience

I believe that America's traditional , the ones from what are commonly called Western nations, will borrow a phrase from the retail trade to reply to Trump:

"You broke it, you bought it."

Iran is a thorn in the side of Israel and came to be a powerful force in the Middle East due to the foolish, illegal war the US precipitated on Iraq. Today, Iran and Iraq are formidable partners and both want the Palestinians to get a fair deal and are supporting the countries and political entities the US and Israel want to undermine in Syria and Lebanon.

Trump will be forever recognized as a stooge of the Israelis who will simply demand the abandonment entirely of Iran's nuclear (for energy, not weapons!) programme, and he will simply refuse to negotiate any further.

Fact is they are in compliance.. Have been for years, it's purely a Trump created crisis to make himself important.. 

“Iran has imported a huge amount of yellow cake since the nuclear deal” in 2015, and also produced some domestically. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that is policing Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, said on June 5 that the AEOI had informed it of “tentative” plans to resume production of UF6. The move is symbolic and permissible under the nuclear deal, which allows Iran to enrich uranium to 3.67 percent, far below the 90 percent needed for weapons-grade uranium, and caps its stock of enriched uranium hexafluoride at 300 kilograms (660 pounds).

Poland and Hungary will send their warships! ????

9 hours ago, webfact said:

And so I think probably over the next couple of weeks we'll identify which nations have the political will to support that initiative 

Political will?

lol... the will to lick the trumps but but but, more like

It sounds like the US is going to be busy bullying and bribing again to get together another "Coalition of the Willing" but against Iran this time lol!

12 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S proposal for an international coalition to safeguard shipping in the Strait

Will that include assuring passage of Iranian commercial vessels? Doubt that.

What the U.S. is proposing is to turn the passage into a militarized zone.

To enter Persian Gulf ships must pass through Iranian territorial waters. In addition the Island of Hormuz belongs to Iran. That means the U.S. is proposing a coalition that militarizes a nation's sovereign territory with foreign warships and other military war assets. By establishing a permanent military presence in the passage to control shipping, the U.S.is in essence invading Iran who would legally be justified to protect its sovereignty.

 

@expatfromwyoming

 

Iran and Iraq are not "formidable partners". Iran got a lot of pull in Iraq, and not all Iraqis are enthusiastic about it. Either way, this got little to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and neither government really cares all that much. As for "undermining" - some would say that a good description  of Iran's actions in Lebanon and Syria. With both, what matters for Iran are Iran's interests, rather than the moral/ideological version implied.

 

Kinda doubt you've got an inside track on Trump's thinking and intentions. If anything, he showed he's quite willing to backstab supposed allies, if it furthers his own interests.

 

Noticeably missing from the "informed" take above are Saudi Arabia and the UAE roles. And the same goes to actually acknowledging that the USA got vested interests in the region - both political and economic.

 

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@expatfromwyoming

 

Iran and Iraq are not "formidable partners". Iran got a lot of pull in Iraq, and not all Iraqis are enthusiastic about it. Either way, this got little to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and neither government really cares all that much. As for "undermining" - some would say that a good description  of Iran's actions in Lebanon and Syria. With both, what matters for Iran are Iran's interests, rather than the moral/ideological version implied.

 

Kinda doubt you've got an inside track on Trump's thinking and intentions. If anything, he showed he's quite willing to backstab supposed allies, if it furthers his own interests.

 

Noticeably missing from the "informed" take above are Saudi Arabia and the UAE roles. And the same goes to actually acknowledging that the USA got vested interests in the region - both political and economic.

 

in your opinion of course.

Trump should just do what he stated last week, let these other nations protect their own ships. It amusing listening to the US and Trump bashers, as the countries they hail from don't have a presence in protecting the same oil tankers their economies depend on. We're no longer dependent on Middle East oil. The US doesn't need to be there. Yes, the US should stop defending the economies of the EU and Asia. I understand China has a huge Navy, I sure all the Trump detractors would prefer having them decide who sails through and who doesn't.

3 minutes ago, Morty T said:

Trump should just do what he stated last week, let these other nations protect their own ships. It amusing listening to the US and Trump bashers, as the countries they hail from don't have a presence in protecting the same oil tankers their economies depend on. We're no longer dependent on Middle East oil. The US doesn't need to be there. Yes, the US should stop defending the economies of the EU and Asia. I understand China has a huge Navy, I sure all the Trump detractors would prefer having them decide who sails through and who doesn't.

Trump creates a problem and then he wants to unload the consequences on the Europeans.

7 hours ago, expatfromwyoming said:

in your opinion of course.

 

No, not only "in my opinion". More like a lame deflection on  your part.

 

Iran's involvement with any of the instances (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria) cited is a controversial issue - there is no wall to wall cheer-leading in any of these places. That's a matter of fact and record. Iranian support often comes with the price tag of highlighting existing rifts and rivalries within countries and people.

 

I believe Iran or Iraq care about the Palestinians, in the same way I believe that the USA if "fighting for democracy" etc. Countries need labels to push their agendas, that's all. Using the Palestinians and/or the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a political tool for domestic and regional purposes - sure. Not the same as what you offered.

 

Trump turning back on supposed allies and partners is, I think, a well established occurrence by now. How it's an "opinion" I couldn't say.

 

No mention of Saudi Arabia and the UAE roles, or the USA having valid interests in the region  - again, not an "opinion".

 

52 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, not only "in my opinion". More like a lame deflection on  your part.

 

Iran's involvement with any of the instances (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria) cited is a controversial issue - there is no wall to wall cheer-leading in any of these places. That's a matter of fact and record. Iranian support often comes with the price tag of highlighting existing rifts and rivalries within countries and people.

 

I believe Iran or Iraq care about the Palestinians, in the same way I believe that the USA if "fighting for democracy" etc. Countries need labels to push their agendas, that's all. Using the Palestinians and/or the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a political tool for domestic and regional purposes - sure. Not the same as what you offered.

 

Trump turning back on supposed allies and partners is, I think, a well established occurrence by now. How it's an "opinion" I couldn't say.

 

No mention of Saudi Arabia and the UAE roles, or the USA having valid interests in the region  - again, not an "opinion".

 

And also as a matter of fact and record, which you choose to ignore, is that the Iranians are up against some very determined enemies, such as the Saudis and the UAE. who also meddle in the affairs of Syria and Lebanon, as well as a slew of other mideast nations.. Including but not at all limited to support for Islamist militias in Syria. The Syrian government may be awful, but an Islamist one would be even worse. Excluding mention of the Sauds and UAE activities, the actions of which goes a long way towards explaining Iran's behavior, is obviously misleading.