DOCSLIB.ORG

Allied Protection of Ships in the Persian Gulf in 1987 and 1988

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Allied Protection of Ships in the Persian Gulf in 1987 and 1988 BURDEN SHARING Allied Protection of Ships in the Persian Gulf in 1987 and 1988 142164 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20648 National Security and International Affairs Division B-240294 September 6,199O The Honorable Pat Schroeder Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives The Honorable Andy Ireland House of Representatives This report is the unclassified version of our classified report. It summa- rizes and updates the information provided to your staffs during our April 5, 1990, briefing on the major activities of the allies and Persian Gulf states to sustain open navigation in the Persian Gulf between March 1987 and August 1988. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) identify the countries involved in sustaining open navigation and the role each played, (2) analyze the value of the contributions provided by those countries, and (3) assess the potential economic impact of the dis- ruption of Gulf oil imports on Gulf states and industrialized countries. In late 1986, Iran began attacking ships in the Persian Gulf, In the spring of 1987, the President announced that the United States would reflag and escort Kuwaiti ships. In May 1987, he extended U.S. protec- tion to neutral ships on a case-by-case basis, under an operation called Earnest Will. The United States also called upon its allies to protect shipping in the Gulf. Section 1 of this report provides a historic perspec- tive of non-Gulf countries’ presence in the region. Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the Results in Brief United States escorted and monitored their flagged ships and helped keep the Persian Gulf shipping lanes clear of mines. Only three of these countries provided GAO estimates of the incremental costs they incurred in these naval operations. These cost estimates ranged from $100 million to $240 million, E3ecausesome of the participating countries did not report cost estimates for their naval operations in the Gulf, we assigned a daily cost-based on U.S. operating costs- to each type of ship supporting operation Ear- nest Will and derived a relative value of the contribution of each of the non-Gulf countries. Based on our analysis of the types and duration of naval assets provided, we believe the United States accounted for about Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-90-282BR The Persian Gulf B-240294 40 percent of the assets, followed by France (34 percent), the United Kingdom (10 percent), Italy (7 percent), and the joint Belgium/Nether- lands operation (9 percent). Three other non-Gulf countries provided indirect assistance. West Germany interpreted its constitution as prohib- iting it from providing a naval presence in the Gulf. Alternatively, it fulfilled a U.S. commitment to NATO to provide naval forces in the Medi- terranean, thereby freeing U.S. ships for the Gulf operation. In calcu- lating its contribution, Japan claimed credit for $500 million in loans to Oman and Jordan, Japan also paid $9 million for a precision navigation system installed in the Gulf. Luxembourg, which has no Navy, provided $400,000 for the upkeep of other countries’ forces during the operation. The Gulf states provided vital access to their ports, bases, and facilities as well as other assistance, including fuel for U.S. ships and aircraft. Section 2 provides details on countries’ contributions to keeping the Per- sian Gulf open to navigation, and section 3 provides a burden sharing analysis of these contributions. One objective of operation Earnest Will was to maintain the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf area. During the conflict, oil disruptions did not occur, and Persian Gulf oil production actually increased slightly. Section 4 provides an overview of oil prices and production during the conflict. The Department of Energy disruption impact simulator pro- jected that if a disruption had occurred, crude oil prices would have more than doubled. Moreover, the oil market would have distributed price changes to both imported and domestically produced oil, thereby affecting all industrialized countries dependent upon oil or its products. The allied countries involved in maintaining open navigation in the Gulf and 12 other countries belong to the International Energy Agency (IEA). During an oil disruption, these countries agree to share their oil reserves. This agreement is designed to spread the short-term impact of an oil disruption to all member oil-consuming countries. In addition, countries that are less dependent on Persian Gulf imports, like the United States, will lose some of their imports from other market sources, such as Mexico, as other oil-dependent countries compete for available resources, Section 5 provides a detailed analysis of the economic impli- cations of an oil disruption on oil prices and consuming countries. Page 2 GAO/NSJAD-QO-282BR The Persian Gulf B-240294 Our objectives, scope, and methodology are in appendix I. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of Defense and State and to other interested congressional committees. Major contributors to this briefing report are listed in appendix II. If you have any questions, you may reach me at (202) 276-4128. Joseph E. Kelley Director, Security and International Relations Issues Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-80-282BR The Persian Gulf Contents Letter 1 Section 1 6 Allied Commitment to Summary 6 Several Countries Have Maintained a Lengthy Presence in 6 the Gulf Region the Region U.S. Objective Is to Ensure Regional Security and 6 Maintain Oil Flow U.S. Forces Vary as Threat Increases and Subsides 6 Operation Earnest Will Begins 7 Section 2 8 Overview of Country Summary 8 Nine Non-Gulf Countries Provided Support 8 Involvement Six Gulf States Supported the Effort 9 Section 3 10 Assessment of Burden Summary 10 Cost of Contributions Is Difficult to Measure 10 Sharing Not All Countries Provided Cost Data 10 Non-Gulf Countries Assessed in Relation to Naval Assets 12 Provided Section 4 14 Overview of Oil Prices Summary 14 Non-Gulf Countries’ Presence Demonstrated the 14 and Production During Importance of Gulf Oil the Conflict Operation Facilitated the Continued Free Flow of Oil 14 Little Increase in Worldwide Oil Prices Resulted 16 Section 5 17 Analysis of Potential Summary 17 IEA Members Did Not Have to Share Reserves 17 Impact of a Persian Potential Impact of a Disruption on Oil-Dependent 18 Gulf Oil Disruption Economies Impact of a One-Quarter Oil Disruption on the United 21 States Potential Impact of a Disruption on Gulf Oil-Producing 22 Nations Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-BO-2S2BR The Persian Gulf Content8 Appendixes Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 24 Appendix II: Major Contributors to This Report 25 Tables Table 3.1: U.S. Incremental Costs of Persian Gulf 11 Operations Table 3.2: Relative Value of the Contributions of the Six 13 Countries With Ships Operating in the Persian Gulf (Between October 1987 and August 1988) Table 6.1: 1987 OECD Oil Statistics 18 Table 5.2: Estimated Losses From a Total Disruption in 20 Persian Gulf Oil Supplies Table 6.3: Estimated Losses Due to a Disruption in the 21 Strait of Hormuz Table 6.4: The Potential Effect of a Disruption of 22 Petroleum Shipments Through the Strait of Hormuz Table 5.5: Gulf States Oil Statistics (1987) 23 Figures Figure 4.1: Oil Production 1986-89 (First Quarter 1987 16 Through Third Quarter 1988 Covers Operation Earnest Will) Figure 4.2: Quarterly Oil Prices (March 1987 Through 16 September 1988) Abbreviations AWACS Airborne Warning and Control System Gulf Cooperation Council GDP Gross Domestic Product GNP Gross National Product IEA International Energy Agency IEP International Energy Program mbd millions of barrels a day OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-90.282BR The Persian Gulf * Section 1 Allied Commitment to the Gulf Region . Several Countries Have Maintained a Lengthy Presence in the Region Summary . U.S. Objective Is to Ensure Regional Security and Maintain Oil Flow l U.S. Forces Vary as Threat Increases and Subsides l Operation Earnest Will Begins The United States has maintained a naval presence in the Persian Gulf Several Countries region’ since 1949. France and the United Kingdom have also main- Have Maintained a tained a lengthy naval presence in the Gulf. The United Kingdom, for Lengthy Presencein example, has maintained ships in the region since 1980. The rationale the Region for this presence is the importance of Gulf oil to industrialized nations. The economies of the United States and its European and Pacific allies U.S. Objective Is to are dependent on the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil. In the short Ensure Regional term, a disruption in the flow of oil from the Gulf may not pose an Security and Maintain immediate problem because oil may be available from other producers. However, a mid- or long-term disruption would, no doubt, result in price Oil Flow increases, thereby threatening the economies of all net oil-importing nations. The greatest threat to allied interests in the area is the spillover of a regional conflict that could interrupt the flow of oil. Historically, rela- tions in the Gulf region have been volatile. U.S. strategy has been to demonstrate a commitment to the region that is firm, credible, and durable in the face of conflicts that could affect established U.S. com- mitments. The United States is therefore committed to ensuring stability and security with the friendly regional states. In the last 41 years of U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Deterrence Model
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OTHES DISSERTATION Titel der Dissertation „Iran’s Nuclear Program: Comparative Study of Deterrence Stability Models in South Asia and the Middle East“ Verfasser Muhammad Tehsin angestrebter akademischer Grad Doktor der Philosophie (Dr.phil.) Wien, am Februar 2009 Studienkennzahl It. Studienblatt: A 092 300 Dissertationsgebiet It. Studienblatt: Geschichte Politikwissenschaft Betreuer: Univ.-Prof. Hans-Georg Heinrich ABSTRACT The advent of nuclear weapons since the end of World War II altered threat perceptions and the Weltanschauung of policy makers and laymen alike. And, while the nuclear ‘taboo’ has matured over time, states have continued to pursue nuclear capability for its ‘equalizing capability.’ The scholars of international relations offer three general motivations behind national pursuit of nuclear capability. First, national power, second, scientific advancement and technological prowess, and the third reason put forward for nuclearization is national prestige. Given reports of an Iranian nuclear program, it is important to assess policy prescriptions to help prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran and the Middle East. In order to conceptualize the evolving strategic environment in Middle East, this study focuses on its` comparison with South Asia. It has been posited that stability of détente – i.e. conflict normalization (CBMs, resolution of political differences and economic linkages) and non-aggressive nuclear policies and doctrines – is empirical evidence of the stability of a nuclear deterrence model. An unstable deterrence model is characterized by hegemony; spiraling arms races; alliances, and bandwagoning/balancing: efforts that could lead to a general war involving nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Military Engagement in the Broader Middle East
    U.S. MILITARY ENGAGEMENT IN THE BROADER MIDDLE EAST JAMES F. JEFFREY MICHAEL EISENSTADT U.S. MILITARY ENGAGEMENT IN THE BROADER MIDDLE EAST JAMES F. JEFFREY MICHAEL EISENSTADT THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY WWW.WASHINGTONINSTITUTE.ORG The opinions expressed in this Policy Focus are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Washington Institute, its Board of Trustees, or its Board of Advisors. Policy Focus 143, April 2016 All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publica- tion may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing fromthe publisher. ©2016 by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy The Washington Institute for Near East Policy 1111 19th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Design: 1000colors Photo: An F-16 from the Egyptian Air Force prepares to make contact with a KC-135 from the 336th ARS during in-flight refueling training. (USAF photo by Staff Sgt. Amy Abbott) Contents Acknowledgments V I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF U.S. MILITARY OPERATIONS 1 James F. Jeffrey 1. Introduction to Part I 3 2. Basic Principles 5 3. U.S. Strategy in the Middle East 8 4. U.S. Military Engagement 19 5. Conclusion 37 Notes, Part I 39 II. RETHINKING U.S. MILITARY STRATEGY 47 Michael Eisenstadt 6. Introduction to Part II 49 7. American Sisyphus: Impact of the Middle Eastern Operational Environment 52 8. Disjointed Strategy: Aligning Ways, Means, and Ends 58 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Past U.S.-Iran Confrontations Hold Lessons for Current Crisis | The
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 3145 Past U.S.-Iran Confrontations Hold Lessons for Current Crisis by Michael Eisenstadt Jun 27, 2019 Also available in Arabic ABOUT THE AUTHORS Michael Eisenstadt Michael Eisenstadt is the Kahn Fellow and director of The Washington Institute's Military and Security Studies Program. Brief Analysis Despite its measured approach thus far, Tehran may come to view the latest showdown as an existential conflict with an irresolute adversary, warranting greater risk-taking on its part. s Iran’s military ripostes to America’s “maximum pressure” campaign threaten to spark a broader conflict, A U.S. decisionmakers should bear in mind the lessons of prior military confrontations. On several occasions over the past three decades, Washington has grappled with similar challenges of escalation, coercion, and deterrence, including the naval convoy operations during the Iran-Iraq War, the lethal assistance that Tehran provided to Shia militant groups “resisting” the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and the competing pressure campaigns that preceded the 2015 nuclear deal. GULF CONVOY OPERATIONS (1987-1988) I n response to Iranian small-boat attacks on neutral shipping during the latter phases of the Iran-Iraq War, the United States initiated Operation Earnest Will in July 1987 to escort reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. With the start of operations, the Reagan administration warned Iran against attacking the convoys with Silkworm missiles as they transited the Strait of Hormuz. The administration assumed that the presence of the USS Kitty Hawk carrier group would deter Iranian countermoves. Yet while the launch of convoy operations spurred the Iranians to dramatically reduce their small-boat attacks, they were quick to challenge the United States indirectly; during the very first convoy, the tanker Bridgeton struck a covertly sown mine.
    [Show full text]
  • Ship Covers Relating to the Iran/Iraq Tanker War
    THE IRAN/IRAQ TANKER WAR AND RENAMED TANKERS ~ Lawrence Brennan, (US Navy Ret.) SHIP COVERS RELATING TO THE IRAN/IRAQ TANKER WAR & REFLAGGED KUWAITI TANKERS, 1987-881 “The Kuwaiti fleet reads like a road map of southern New Jersey” By Captain Lawrence B. Brennan, U.S. Navy Retired2 Thirty years ago there was a New Jersey connection to the long-lasting Iran-Iraq War. That eight years of conflict was one of the longest international two-state wars of the 20th century, beginning in September 1980 and effectively concluding in a truce in August 1988. The primary and bloody land war between Iran and Iraq began during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The Shah had left Iran and that year the USSR invaded Afghanistan. The conflict expanded to sea and involved many neutral nations whose shipping came under attack by the combatants. The parties’ intent was to damage their opponents’ oil exports and revenues and decrease world supplies. Some suggested that Iran and Iraq wanted to draw other states into the conflict. An Iranian source explained the origin of the conflict at sea. The tanker war seemed likely to precipitate a major international incident for two reasons. First, some 70 percent of Japanese, 50 percent of West European, and 7 percent of American oil imports came from the Persian Gulf in the early 1980s. Second, the assault on tankers involved neutral shipping as well as ships of the belligerent states.3 The relatively obscure first phase began in 1981, and the well-publicized second phase began in 1984. New Jersey, half a world away from the Persian (Arabian) gulf, became involved when the United States agreed to escort Kuwait tankers in an effort to support a friendly nation and keep the international waters open.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications for U.S. Policy
    U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications for U.S. Policy Updated July 29, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45795 SUMMARY R45795 U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications for July 29, 2019 U.S. Policy Kenneth Katzman Since May 2019, U.S.-Iran tensions have escalated. The Trump Administration, following its Specialist in Middle 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran (Joint Comprehensive Eastern Affairs Plan of Action, JCPOA), has taken several steps in its campaign of applying “maximum pressure” on Iran. Iran and Iran-linked forces have targeted commercial ships and infrastructure Kathleen J. McInnis in U.S. partner countries. U.S. officials have stated that Iran-linked threats to U.S. forces and Specialist in International interests, and attacks on several commercial ships in May and June 2019, have prompted the Security Administration to send additional military assets to the region to deter future Iranian actions. However, Iran’s downing of a U.S. unmanned aerial aircraft might indicate that Iran has not been deterred, to date. Clayton Thomas Analyst in Middle Eastern President Donald Trump has said he prefers a diplomatic solution over moving toward military Affairs confrontation, including a revised JCPOA that encompasses not only nuclear issues but also broader U.S. concerns about Iran’s support for regional armed factions. During May-June 2019, the Administration has placed further pressure on Iran’s economy. By expanding U.S. sanctions against Iran, including sanctioning its mineral and petrochemical exports, and Supreme Leader Ali Khamene’i. Iranian leaders have refused to talk directly with the Administration, and Iran has begun to exceed some nuclear limitations stipulated in the JCPOA.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications for U.S. Policy
    U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications for U.S. Policy Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Kathleen J. McInnis Specialist in International Security Clayton Thomas Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs July 1, 2019 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R45795 SUMMARY R45795 U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications for U.S. July 1, 2019 Policy Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs In the spring of 2019, U.S.-Iran tensions have escalated. The Trump Administration, [email protected] following its 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran Kathleen J. McInnis (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA), has taken several steps in its campaign Specialist in International of applying “maximum pressure” on Iran. Iran or Iran-linked forces have targeted Security commercial ships and infrastructure in U.S. partner countries. [email protected] U.S. officials have stated that Iran-linked threats to U.S. forces and interests, and attacks Clayton Thomas on several commercial ships in May and June 2019, have prompted the Administration Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs to send additional military assets to the region to deter future Iranian actions. President [email protected] Donald Trump, while warning Iran not to take action against the United States, has said he prefers a diplomatic solution over moving toward military confrontation. The For a copy of the full report, Administration has expanded U.S. sanctions against Iran, including sanctioning its please call 7-.... or visit mineral and petrochemical exports during May-June 2019, placing further pressure on www.crs.gov. Iran’s economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Operations in Unstable Geopolitical Environments
    Welcome to the Seventh Annual Company Security Officer (CSO)/National Maritime Interagency Advisory Group (NIAG) Meeting Maritime Conference Center (MCC) on the campus of the Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies (MITAGS) 692 Maritime Boulevard Linthicum Heights, MD 21090 Baltimore, Maryland Tuesday-Thursday, September 17-19, 2019 The Theme for this Year’s Event is: Maritime Operations in Unstable Geopolitical Environments Meeting Schedule of Events: Tuesday: September 17th 1300-1600 – Port of Baltimore tour for local and early arrival travelers (tentative venue Subcom vessel/facilities & MARAD vessel) Dress – business casual with clothes and closed toed shoes appropriate for industrial area visitation 1700-1830 – Dinner: No host social in MITAGS Dining Hall (pay as you go) Presentation: You Tube Seminar of Operation Earnest Will: The U.S. Navy in the “Tanker War” by Stephen Phillips delivered at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab on June 28, 20181 Dress - business casual 1830-2000 – Bridge Simulator: State-of-the-Art Bridge Simulator and Trainers available to demonstrate merchant marine Bridge training for all participants Wednesday: September 18th 0730-0800 - Registration and Check-in (Outside Auditorium) 0800-0805 - Welcome to MITAGS Campus (Mr. Glen Paine, Executive Director) 1 Operation Earnest Will refers to the 1987 reflagging of 11 Kuwaiti Oil Tankers during the Iran-Iraq War: 1980- 1988. Numerous warships and commercial vessels were struck by Iranian laid sea-borne mines and shore-based anti-ship missiles. 1. Introduction: RADM Mark H. Buzby, Maritime Administrator (MARAD) – tentative Mr. Lyston Lea, Principal Advisor, National Maritime Intelligence-Integration Office (NMIO) Mr. Cameron Naron, Director, Office of Maritime Security (MARAD) Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The a to Z of Middle Eastern Intelligence by Ephraim Kahana and Muhammad Suwaed, 2009
    OTHER A TO Z GUIDES FROM THE SCARECROW PRESS, INC. 1. The A to Z of Buddhism by Charles S. Prebish, 2001. 2. The A to Z of Catholicism by William J. Collinge, 2001. 3. The A to Z of Hinduism by Bruce M. Sullivan, 2001. 4. The A to Z of Islam by Ludwig W. Adamec, 2002. 5. The A to Z of Slavery & Abolition by Martin A. Klein, 2002. 6. Terrorism: Assassins to Zealots by Sean Kendall Anderson and Stephen Sloan, 2003. 7. The A to Z of the Korean War by Paul M. Edwards, 2005. 8. The A to Z of the Cold War by Joseph Smith and Simon Davis, 2005. 9. The A to Z of the Vietnam War by Edwin E. Moise, 2005. 10. The A to Z of Science Fiction Literature by Brian Stableford, 2005. 11. The A to Z of the Holocaust by Jack R. Fischel, 2005. 12. The A to Z of Washington, D.C. by Robert Benedetto, Jane Dono- van, and Kathleen DuVall, 2005. 13. The A to Z of Taoism by Julian F. Pas, 2006. 14. The A to Z of the Renaissance by Charles G. Nauert, 2006. 15. The A to Z of Shinto by Stuart D. B. Picken, 2006. 16. The A to Z of Byzantium by John H. Rosser, 2006. 17. The A to Z of the Civil War by Terry L. Jones, 2006. 18. The A to Z of the Friends (Quakers) by Margery Post Abbott, Mary Ellen Chijioke, Pink Dandelion, and John William Oliver Jr., 2006 19.
    [Show full text]
  • Better Lucky Than Good Operation Earnest Will As Gunboat Diplomacy
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2007-06 Better lucky than good operation earnest will as gunboat diplomacy Kelley, Stephen Andrew Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/3463 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS BETTER LUCKY THAN GOOD: OPERATION EARNEST WILL AS GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY by Stephen Andrew Kelley June 2007 Thesis Co-Advisors: Daniel J. Moran James A. Russell Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2007 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Better Lucky Than Good: Operation Earnest Will as 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Gunboat Diplomacy 6. AUTHOR(S): Stephen Andrew Kelley 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8.
    [Show full text]
  • International Court of Justice Case Concerning Oil
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING OIL PLATFOMS (ZSLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) - COUNTER-MEMOIUAL AND COUNTER-CLAM m.-- - SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERiCA TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PART 1. STATEMENT OF FACT CHAPTER 1. AN OVERVIEW OF THE "TANKER WAR" CHAPTER II. IRAN'S ATTACKS ON MERCHANT SHIPPING Section 1. The Flagging of Kuwaiti Tankers Under U.S. Registry and the Launch of Operation Earnest Will by the United States Section 2. Iran's Response to the Reflagging of Kuwaiti Vessels; Iran's First Attack on U.S.-flag Shipping -- the Miing of the Oil Tanker Bridgeton A. The Mining of Kuwaiti Waters B. The Mining of the US.-flag Bridgeron Section 3. Iranian Mining Activities Continue; Hostile Encounters Between U.S. and Iranian Forces A. lranian Forces Mine Waters Off the Coast of Fujayrah, Near the Entrance to the Persian Gulf B. September 1987: U.S. Forces Capture an Iranian Vessel Caught in the Act of Laying Mines in International Waters, and Find Nurnerous Mines on Deck; the Mines Found on the Iranian Vessel Matched Mines Laid Elsewhere in the Gulf C. October 1987: Iranian Vessels and the Roçtam Oil Platfom Fire Upon U.S. Helicopters CHAPTER III. THE EVENTS SURROUNDING IRAN'S 15 OCTOBER MISSILE ATTACK ON THE TANKER SUNGARl Ah'D IRAN'S 16 OCTOBER 1987 MISSILE ATTACK ON THE U.S.-FLAG TANKER SEA ISLE CITY Section 1. Iranian Forces in the Faw Area Launched a Series of Missile Attacks on Kuwaiti Temto~in the Months and Days Preceding the Attack on the U.S.-flag Sea Isle City A.
    [Show full text]
  • ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN V
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2003 2003 6 November General List No. 90 6 November 2003 CASE CONCERNING OIL PLATFORMS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran — Iranian claims and United States counter-claim for breach of Article X, paragraph 1 — Jurisdiction based on Article XXI, paragraph 2 — Factual background. * * United States contention that the Court should reject Iran’s claims and refuse it the relief it seeks because of Iran’s allegedly unlawful conduct — “Clean hands” — Argument not presented as objection to admissibility — Not necessary to decide the issue. * Iranian claims based on Article X, paragraph 1, of Treaty — Alleged infringement of freedom of commerce between the territories of the Parties by attack on Iranian oil platforms — Judgment of 12 December 1996 on jurisdiction — Relevance of other Articles for interpretation or application of Article X, paragraph 1 — Task of the Court to ascertain whether there has been a - 2 - breach of Article X, paragraph 1 — United States contention that Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), concerning measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of a party, is determinative of the question — Order in which the Court should examine Articles X, paragraph 1, and XX, paragraph 1 (d) — Freedom of Court to choose grounds for its decision — Particular considerations in this case militating in favour of an examination of Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), prior to Article X, paragraph 1 — Relationship between Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), and international law on the use of force — Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret and apply Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), extending, where appropriate, to the determination whether action was or not unlawful use of force, by reference to international law — Provisions of the United Nations Charter and customary international law — Jurisdiction of the Court limited to that conferred by the consent of the Parties.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lessons of Modern
    IX. Phase Six: Expansion of the tanker war in the Gulf to include Western navies, while the land and air war of attrition continues: MARCH 1987 to DECEMBER 1987 9.0 The Increasing Importance of the War at Sea Important as the fighting around Basra was in shaping the future of the land war, developments in the Gulf were leading to a new major new phase of the war. January involved more Iraqi and Iranian attacks on Gulf targets than any previous month in the conflict. Iraq struck at Kharg Island, Iran's transloading facilities at Sirri, and Iran's shuttle tankers and oil facilities. These strikes did not make major cuts in Iran's oil exports, but they did force Iran sent another purchasing mission to Greece, London, and Norway to buy 15 more tankers. Iraqi aircraft continued to strike at tankers and the Iranian oil fields. They hit Iran's Cyrus and Norouz fields in late March and April, as well as the Ardeshir oil field, and they continued attacks on Iranian shipping to Sirri. Nevertheless, Iraq still did not score the kind of successes it had scored against Kharg and Iraq's tanker shuttle the previous year. Iran's exports remained relatively high. Figure 9.1 Patterns in Iraqi and Iranian Attacks on Gulf Shipping: 1984 to June 30, 1987 Month Iraqi Attacks Iranian Attacks Total Attacks Deaths Ship Loss 1984 36 18 54 49 32 1985 33 14 47 16 16 1986 October 1 3 4 - - November 9 2 11 - - December 5 0 5 - - Total 1986 66 41 107 88 30 1987 January 7 6 13 - - February 6 3 9 - - March 3 3 6 - - April 2 3 5 - - January-June 29 29 58 10 4 Source: Adapted from the Economist, April 25, 1987, p.
    [Show full text]