Large-scale multinational military planning is urgently needed if the Strait of Hormuz is to be reopened, the former head of the UK Armed Forces told The National.
Gen Sir David Richards said planning should begin immediately for a coalition spanning air, sea and land forces that was capable of restoring freedom of navigation through the strait. The US approach to the conflict with Iran has “gone wrong”, he added.
“The world has got to come to terms with the fact that that is the only solution, and it would be a major, but limited ground operation,” he said.
French and UK officials have talked in recent weeks of bringing together dozens of countries in a naval convoy plan to ensure shipping resumes across the strait. The waterway carries up to a fifth of global daily oil supplies in normal times and 100 ocean-going vessels were passing every day before the Iran War started on February 28.
The situation is so grave that a much bigger force is necessary, he suggested. This could take as long as two to three months to assemble.
“Despite the war going wrong for the US, planning needs to start now to rapidly create a multinational coalition that can force open Hormuz,” said the former chief of Britain's defence staff. “During this time diplomacy with the threat of force could be used to get Iran’s agreement to open it.”
Ships in the Strait of Hormuz carry oil, LNG, fertiliser components urea and ammonia, helium and aluminium. The sustained disruption is already sending shock waves through energy markets and threatens economic stability.
Restoring freedom of navigation is a complex task that would not rely on the numbers of surface vessels alone.
White House critique
Gen Richards's remarks also amount to a sharp critique of Washington’s handling of the conflict. While he stopped short of completely blaming the White House, he said he detected a lack of coherent strategy.
“One can be very critical of the American non-strategy or flawed strategy,” said the officer who commanded international forces in Afghanistan in 2006. “But we ought to now get behind the Americans and work with them because collectively Nato and others have a huge amount of military muscle.”
He added that given the “huge global impact” it will have on everyone that was a “very important reason why we have to hold our nose about the way the war was started and now get together”.
Rather than western politicians deriding or abandoning the effort, he said, they should rally behind America to stabilise the situation on a more co-ordinated basis. On the plus side, the logistics hurdles mean there is time to apply heavy diplomatic pressure on Tehran.
Big numbers needed
While more than 4,500 US Marines, about 2,000 US paratroopers and a further force of 10,000 soldiers is being discussed, Gen Richards argued that this was still not enough to secure the area around Hormuz.
Any international force will almost certainly be American led but will also rely on contributions from Nato powers and others. While Gen Richards did not specify numbers, he agreed it would need to be a force close to the roughly 200,000 troops that the US and its allies assembled to invade Iraq in 2003. Iran is nearly four times the size of Iraq.
Therefore, a different type of coalition is the on the cards from the one proposed in London and Paris in recent weeks. The US would make up the majority, possibly with 100,000 troops, with Britain, France, Poland and other Nato allies providing 50,000 while remaining countries would take the number up to 200,000.
“We need to be coming up with a strategy that makes our intent absolutely clear,” he said. “It’s a much bigger military effort than two brigades of American marines and airborne as you need to do a proper job.”
The Hormuz operation would also focus narrowly on securing maritime routes rather than attempting regime change in Tehran. “It will need a limited use of ground troops along the littoral in order to restore freedom of navigation,” he said, referring to coastal areas along the Strait.
The proposal hinged on the use of overwhelming force as a deterrent, what Gen Richards described as the “power principle.” By signalling credible military intent, he believed that a coalition could compel Iran to negotiate rather than repel invaders.
Crucially, he said, such a coalition should extend beyond western allies. Perhaps countries such as India and China, both heavily reliant on Gulf energy supplies, might be persuaded.
“China would support this as it needs the trade routes open,” Gen Richards said, adding that he believed it is “not in their interest” for instability in the region to persist.
Despite the focus on military planning, he emphasised that diplomacy should remain central. The goal would be to present Tehran with a choice to open the strait or face international intervention.
Nuclear Iran
Gen Richards also gave a warning that the American-Israeli attacks now made it more likely that Tehran will pursue nuclear weapons.
“It is likely to be more hardline, more intransigent and more inclined in due course to develop a nuclear capability than was the case,” he said.
Moderates within Iran, he argued, have been discredited, while hardliners are drawing lessons from other regimes that have successfully deterred foreign intervention.
“The more moderate voices have been proved wrong,” he said. “The regime looks at North Korea and sees a country that is being left alone despite it being a pariah state.
Iran’s hardliners will conclude that “future security lies in the development of a nuclear weapon”, he said.
But that would also lead to a dangerous cycle of escalation, in which Israel would conduct periodic strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, in what Gen Richards described as “mowing the grass”.
Act fast
Gen Richards also said that the crisis was having knock-on effects elsewhere, particularly in Ukraine with the diversion of US resources and attention, possibly undermining Kyiv’s position in the Russian invasion.
“Ultimately, it will be US weaponry that makes a difference in the Gulf,” he said, suggesting that competing demands on American military supply could leave Ukraine at a disadvantage.
He contended, too, that the credibility of western alliances, the stability of global trade routes, and the future of nuclear non-proliferation were all on the line.
Despite acknowledging the political and military risks, he stated that the longer the current situation continued the harder and more dangerous it would be to resolve.
“We ought to very quickly be coming up with a strategy that makes our intent absolutely clear,” he said. “The whole world has got to act.”
That meant preparing now for a coalition that was powerful enough to succeed but focused narrowly enough to avoid a wider war.
