Despite ample opportunity to learn the importance of maritime strategic policy, the United States appears to have deliberately chosen not to. I have written numerous articles explaining the importance of understanding the implications of war at sea (Mahan, China, and the Houthis). However, the recent conflict with Iran between the United States and Israel truthfully inspires little confidence that the United States and its Navy are learning the correct lessons.

I could go to great lengths discussing the tactical prowess of the U.S. military, eliminating the Iranian Navy, or how the Navy is “modernizing” its fleet with drones for conducting precision strikes against Iran and to clear mines from the Strait of Hormuz. But frankly, these details matter very little in the greater context of the global maritime economy and geopolitics.

To make matters worse, the United States and Iran have been going tit-for-tat since the first ceasefire on April 8^th. Even after signing the Memorandum of Understanding, Iran attacked another commercial vessel, and the United States subsequently launched more attacks on Iran. The conflict and its future resolve beg several questions for the geopolitical, military, and economic order in the region. Although Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) guarantees safe passage, the conflict is between a Non-Signatory (United States) and a Signatory that has not ratified it (Iran). The security of safe passage through the Strait depends on two countries that do not necessarily abide by conventional international law, indeed highlighting the limitations of the United Nations and international law itself.

As it stands, the economic spigot that is the Strait of Hormuz is effectively shut — meaning it is not remotely close to its pre-war levels, not to mention the fact that the Red Sea has yet to return to normal levels of commerce since the Iranian-backed Houthis initiated their attacks on commercial shipping. The economic consequence of two maritime passages — both major contributors to the global economy — being shut will certainly have knock-on effects for an indefinite period.

One should expect inflation to persist unseen despite the normal economic indicators most ‘economists’ follow. For example, in late May, Chicago Federal Reserve President Austan Goolsbee noted that energy inflation has persisted despite reductions in the price of oil; anyone who understands the interdependence of the global maritime economy similarly understands how any disruption to the system is farther reaching than mere price adjustments. Petrochemicals are not the only resources that flow through the Strait of Hormuz, and indeed, the costs of inflation for these physical assets cannot truly be felt because they travel at the speed of a commercial vessel. Marc Levinson makes this clear in his masterpiece (at least for those who appreciate the complexities of the global, maritime economy), The Box,

If a 13-day voyage is the equivalent of a 10 percent tariff, then the knock-on effects of the total stoppage, disruption, or, in the case of the Red Sea, rerouting traffic around the Cape of Good Hope (adding 30 days to the voyage), are much more drastic than most might imagine.

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

As I predicted in March at the beginning of the ceasefire, negotiations, and blockade, the American effort in Iran has wrought an outcome that can only be described as an American defeat. In the context of an extended ceasefire, the agreement between Tehran and Washington includes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz as its centerpiece, …

Read more

Introduction:

In the years leading up to the First World War, the planners of the various combatant nations became uniformly convinced of the decisiveness of the offensive. Products of the Romantic Era, as they were, this generation was brought up to believe in the ability of the human spirit to conquer any obstacle. A practical consequence of this prec…

Read more

Introduction: Crisis in the Alliance

The Trump administration announced on May 1st the withdrawal of 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany, in both a culmination of recent travails and a sign of what is in store for the Atlantic Alliance. Bitter recriminations roil the Transatlantic relationship, with NATO becoming the source of tensions. The Trump administrati…

Read more

Introduction: An Anecdote

In the period between 1856 and 1870, the French ruler Louis Napoleon, nicknamed “the Sphinx of Tuileries” for his alleged ability to hatch clever schemes, embarked upon a series of foreign policy actions, none of which bore any relation to the French national interest, abandoned each of them once he encountered difficulties, an…

Read more

Read more

The word strategy has become common refrain, ubiquitous in all walks of life. Too often strategy is invoked for seemingly parochial focus, but few can provide a useful definition. So-called “strategies” abound in every field: business, economics, public relations, marketing, education, and self-help, etc. But what precisely is strategy?

It is common know…

Read more

Read more

Read more

During his last term, President Barack Obama called for the United States to “pivot to the pacific,” a policy shift to move focus from the ‘forever wars’ in the Middle East for a greater focus on competing with China’s growing economic and military presence in the region. The United States has clearly struggled to activ…

Read more

Read more

The View from the Pacific

Read more

Read more

The first hundred days of President Trump’s second term are characterized by a uniform sense of shock and bewilderment among Americans citizens, their allies, and even adversaries. The new administration has begun to execute a policy which harkens back to prior epoch of American history, irrespective of either the nature of the last century’s changes or…

Read more

Subscribe now

Read more