Britain’s Gulf Ambition Collides With Reality

Britain’s Gulf Ambition Collides With Reality

A recent British proposal to build a coalition to secure the Strait of Hormuz without the United States has sparked debate about global naval power. The idea, aiming to ensure safe passage for ships, faces significant practical and logistical hurdles. This highlights a larger shift in global security, where the old order, built by the U.S. after World War II, is being tested.

The Post-War Security System

After World War II, the United States reshaped global security. It essentially told allies they didn’t need large navies. The U.S. would handle global maritime security. This allowed other nations to focus on trade and domestic issues. In return, the U.S. had influence over their security policies. This system meant most countries let their naval forces shrink or disappear.

A New Naval Arms Race?

Policies like those of former President Donald Trump, which questioned alliances and international agreements, have prompted many countries to reconsider their defense. They are now looking to rebuild their navies. However, building a navy from scratch takes years. Even if many nations start today, significant naval power won’t be ready until the end of this decade. This means current capabilities, not future plans, are what matter now.

Limited Naval Power on Display

When looking at who can actually project power in distant regions, only a few nations have capable navies. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and China are the only ones with truly significant naval forces. However, France and China have naval ranges that are limited. This leaves only the U.S., Japan, and the UK as countries with the ability to reach the Persian Gulf from their home bases. The French might manage, but only if they can use the Suez Canal, which presents its own logistical challenges.

Scale of the Challenge in Hormuz

Even if all these nations had powerful navies, their combined strength might still be less than what the U.S. already has in the region. The sheer number and type of ships needed for such a mission are substantial. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital shipping lane, but Iran has created a system where ships often check in and are escorted through Iranian-controlled waters. Ships that don’t comply risk attack, not necessarily from Iranian ships, but from missiles and drones.

Iran’s Asymmetric Warfare

Iran’s strategy relies on using missiles and drones, which can have ranges of several hundred miles. To counter this effectively, a naval escort isn’t enough. It would require neutralizing threats along the coastline. This means potentially bombarding or even occupying parts of the Iranian coast. The coastline in question is vast, stretching from New York City down to Savannah in the U.S. It’s unlikely any country, except perhaps the U.S. with its entire army, could secure such a large area.

The Political Solution

Given these military limitations, a lasting solution to the threats against shipping likely needs to be political. A deal with Iran appears to be the only viable option. The global community, even combined, lacks the naval force to enforce a solution militarily. Every U.S. military and intelligence leader since 1979 has warned presidents about the potential consequences of conflict with Iran. These warnings suggest that any military action would lead to unavoidable breakdowns in regional stability.

Ignoring Warnings and Future Scenarios

The Trump administration, and Donald Trump personally, reportedly ignored these long-standing warnings. This has led to the current situation where military options seem impractical. The best-case scenario presented is that the U.S. withdraws from the region, and Iran chooses not to escalate further. However, given the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and regional dynamics, this outcome seems unlikely.

Global Impact

This situation highlights the fragility of the U.S.-led global security architecture. As U.S. focus potentially shifts, allies are forced to confront security challenges independently. However, the lack of independent naval power demonstrates how dependent many nations have become on U.S. military guarantees. The difficulty in mounting a collective naval response to the Hormuz situation shows the limits of current alliances and the challenges of maintaining global trade routes without a dominant U.S. presence.

Why This Reshapes the World Order

The post-WWII order was built on American security guarantees in exchange for economic and political alignment. The current events question the sustainability of these guarantees. If allies cannot rely on the U.S. for security, they must develop their own capabilities. This could lead to a more fragmented world with regional powers asserting themselves more strongly. The Strait of Hormuz issue is a microcosm of this larger trend, showing that the old ways of ensuring global security are no longer sufficient.

Source: Can the British Reopen the Strait of Hormuz? || Peter Zeihan (YouTube)