Strait of Hormuz and Military Operations
During the 1990s, after the first Gulf War ignited by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the United States collaborated with allies like the UK and France to create two no-fly zones over Iraq, which persisted until major combat ended in 2003.
The northern zone was set up in April 1991 to safeguard the Iraqi Kurds from further aggression by Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, the southern zone commenced in August 1992 to protect the Shiite population that had suffered a brutal crackdown after a coalition victory in the operation against Iraqi forces in Kuwait. These operations transformed into prolonged, low-intensity conflicts. Perhaps it’s time for a similar approach again.
Even though the Strait of Hormuz is recognized as an international waterway with protections rooted in maritime law, it poses dangers, particularly from piracy and threats from Iran since the 1979 revolution. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) remains a significant threat, employing tactics like mines and drone attacks alongside missile capabilities.
The U.S. and its allies should renew military operations against the IRGC. The current regimes controlling the IRGC seem to misinterpret their defeat and need a stronger response. Their military capabilities can and should be neutralized. The sooner action is taken, the better.
Following a major offensive, it would be wise to implement a “no-fire” zone extending at least a hundred miles from the Strait’s coast. This zone should ideally enhance defenses against much of Iran’s remaining military assets. If provocations continue, a “no-movement” zone could also be established in the same area. The significance of this strait to the global economy makes it crucial that we don’t allow hostile entities to operate near our shores.
Establishing a “no-fire, no-move” zone may require sustained U.S. military presence, presenting a test for NATO’s effectiveness as an alliance. If NATO is unwilling to help secure these waterways, the responsibility may fall entirely on the U.S.
This dependency could be a wake-up call for Europe—more than 80 years after World War II, it’s time for them to shoulder their share of the burden. If U.S. forces must act without crucial support from Europe, it may be time to reassess long-standing assumptions about defense policy. It appears that the dynamics have shifted, with Europe perhaps needing to become more self-reliant, rather than relying on American support while maintaining a passive stance towards conflicts, like that with Iran.
This moment poses a significant challenge for the West. Just like in the Pacific, the U.S. may take a leading role in managing the Gulf, potentially leaving Europe with a secondary position in strategic discussions.
Feels like a case of ingratitude. Europe seems to have forgotten multiple times when it needed rescuing from oppressive regimes, having taken for granted the protection offered by the U.S. This ongoing reliance raises questions about whether the “new world” should always be expected to look after the “old world,” particularly when the latter appears capable of standing on its own.
