Category Middle East

Current U.S. and Allied Forces in the Gulf (late May 2019)

USS Abraham Lincoln, May 19, 2019

Since 1990, the U.S. has always maintained a presence in and around the Persian/Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. The UK also traditionally has a presence in the Gulf. Exactly what is there now?

In Iraq: 6,700+ U.S. and allied troops and supporting civilians

  1. Around 5,000 U.S. troops, primarily involved in training.
    1. As of 2017 the Pentagon has stopped providing the number of troops that are being deployed in Iraq citing security concerns.
    2. There are also probably U.S. civilians
  2. UK has 400 UK troops in non-combat roles and 1,000 civilians
    “supporting counter-daesh operations.”
  3. Germany has 160 soldiers
  4. Netherlands had 169 military and civilian staff
  5. Australia withdrew in 2018.

Kuwait:

  1. 10,000 troops in Kuwait (under CENTCOM?)

Bahrain:

  1. UK has a Type 23 frigate based there
  2. UK has four minesweepers based there.
  3. UK has a floating base.

Oman:

  1. Some British troops
  2. In March 2019, they performed a joint exercise with the Omani armed forces that included 5,500 British troops.

The Fifth Fleet:

  1. According to the USNI Fleet Tracker , they currently have 21 ships.
    1. This includes the USS Abraham Lincoln and the Kearserge (see below).
  2. 10,000 troops in Qatar (command assumed to be Fifth Fleet)
  3. 1,000+ Marines aboard the Kearsarge
  4. There are probably a number of submarines in the area.

Sending to the Gulf as of new reports of 10 May and after:

  1. Carrier Strike Group 12
    1. USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
      1. 65-70 aircraft (Carrier Air Wing 7)
    2. USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55)
    3. Destroyer Squadron 2 with:
      1. USS Bainbridge (DDG-96)
      2. USS Mason (DDG-87)
      3. USS Nitze (DDG-94)
    4. sometimes submarines
    5. support vessels
    6. Passed through the Suez Canal on May 9.
      1. operating of the coast of Oman 16 May
  2. Amphibious Squadron 6
    1. USS Kearsarge (LHD-3)
    2. 22nd MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit)
      1. A battalion+ of Marines
    3. USS Arlington (LPD-24)
    4. USS Fort McHenry (LSD-43)
    5. Off the coast of UAE near entrance to Gulf on 16 May
  3.  One squadron of B-52s
    1. At Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar
      1. Pictures of them landing on May 9
    2. Others elsewhere in “southwest asia” (Al Dhafra Air Base in UAE?)
    3. Maybe 12-24 aircraft
    4. Aircraft from the 20th Bomb Squadron, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana
  4. One Patriot Missile Battalion
    1. Originally a Patriot battery in the reports of 10 May.
    2. Appears to include forces that were already in the Gulf who extended their deployment.
    3. Maybe 16 launchers of 4 missiles
  5. Two U.S. destroyers entered the Persian Gulf on May 16
    1. USS McFaul (DDG-74)
    2. USS Gonzalez (DDG-66)
  6. Added to the deployed on 24 May
    1. One fighter squadron
    2. Reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft
    3. around 900 troops while another 600 are retained in the Gulf.

This listing was quickly cobbled together from open sources. It should not be quoted without verification.

Max Boot Op-Ed on Iran

Max Boot, author of Savage Wars of Peace, among other books, wrote the following op-ed for the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/20/war-with-iran-would-be-mother-all-quagmires/?utm_term=.53a658dfb57d

One reason we are posting this is that he linked a line in his article to our blog post:

Force Ratios and Counterinsurgency

But this is a op-ed worth reading. There are few points of significance here:

  1. “Instead, what I see is the mother of all quagmires: a conflict that would make the Iraq War — which I now deeply regret supporting — seem like a “cakewalk” by comparison.”
  2. “Air attacks are usually decisive only when combines with ground attacks.:”
  3. “Unfortunately, the United States lacks a realistic ground option in Iran…”
  4. “Iran could employ a combination of antiship cruise missiles, drones, submarines, small boats and mines to “swarm” U.S. naval ships in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf.”
  5. “In response, the United States would do…what?

I do note that Iran could probably also shut down the flow of oil from the Persian/Arabian Gulf for a while. This will certainly affect oil markets worldwide. Still, there is no question that the Saudi Arabia (with the other Gulf States) and/or the United States could establish air superiority over the Gulf. In the long run, that will work to our advantage. There will be a cost to this.

Air Forces in the Persian/Arabian Gulf

Saudi Arabia has the third largest defense budget in the world. A lot of that has gone to aircraft. Their air force currently consists of 844 aircraft and 81,000 personnel. Combat aircraft include:

61 F-15Cs

87 F-15E

53 Typhoons

81 Tornado

Lots of support aircraft. See Royal Saudi Air Force

Everyone else’s air force is notably smaller, except for the UAE.

Country…..Personnel…..Aircraft…..F-16C…..F-16D….F-18C…Mirage 2000….Rafale…..F16 E/F

Iraq………….5,000…………….289……………27………..9

Kuwait………5,000…………………………………………………….27

Qatar………………………………………………………………………………….30………………..1

Bahrain……..1,500……………129……………17

UAE…………………………………573………………………………………………67……………….30………….78

Oman……………………………………………….18…………………………………………………….9 Typhoon

 

……………………………………………….Other

……………..Su-25………AH-64……..Ground Attack

Iraq………….21…………………………..18

Kuwait………………………16

Qatar………………………….1…………..6

Bahrain……………………..22

UAE……………………………………………6

Oman……………………………………….10

 

Between these seven nations, this is something like 595 air superiority and multi-role modern aircraft, plus another 100 or more ground attack aircraft. Certainly enough to patrol the Persian/Arabian Gulf, which is about the size of the state of Wyoming.

On the north side of the Gulf is Iran. It has an air force of 37,000 (2011 estimate) consisting of:

MiG-29:……………20

F-7………………….17 (a Chinese MiG-21)

F-5E………………..25

F-4 Phantom II…….47

F-14…………………24

Mirage F1……………9

Su-22……………….10

Su-24……………….23

 

So, 142 air superiority and multi-role Iranian jets compared to 595 controlled by the seven Arab states lining the Gulf. In most cases, the Arab nations have better quality aircraft…and 33 Ground Attack aircraft vice 100+. No question who will be able to establish air superiority if there is a hot war.

Navies in the Persian/Arabian Gulf

Small boats of Iran during Tanker War (1980s)

A number of states in the Persian/Arabian Gulf have navies. These include frigates and other significant warships. It also includes submarines in the case of Iran.

Saudi Arabia has 7 frigates, 4 corvettes, 9 patrol boats and 3 minesweepers (needed for the Gulf). This is not an insignificant force (See: Royal Saudi Navy).

The United Arab Emirates have 9 corvettes and 9 fast attack craft and other larger patrol vessels (See:  United Arab Emirates Navy)

Little Bahrain (which is majority Shiite, even though the royal family is Sunni) has 1 frigate and 6 patrol craft of note (See: Royal Bahrain Naval Force).

Iraq has 2 corvettes and 6 patrol vessels of note (See: Iraqi Navy)

Oman has 5 corvettes and 12 patrol vessels (See:  Royal Navy of Oman).

Kuwait has 10 Fast Patrol Boats (See:  Kuwait Naval Force)

The outcast Qatar has 7 Fast attack craft (See:  Qatari Emiri Navy)

These seven nations have an interest in either keeping the Persian/Arabian Gulf open or at least remaining neutral in such a conflict. Still, it appears they could muster together 8 frigates, up to 20 corvettes and up to 59 larger patrol craft. There are also a lot of smaller patrol craft which I have not listed.

And then there is Iran, one of only three nations in the world with a Shiite majority (the other two being Iraq and Bahrain). It has the largest navy in the area with around 18,000 personnel (2011 estimate). They have 3 large submarines (2325 tons), 4 smaller submarines (350 to 1200 tons), 27 really small submarines (90 to 120 tons) and 5 mini-subs (10 tons) They have 1 destroyer planned (7,500 tons), 6 frigates (1,500 to 2,000 tons), 3 corvettes (580 to 1,135 tons), 32 fast attack craft (205 to 447 tons), 97 coastal patrol boats (up to 148 tons), 83 smaller patrol boats (14 to 82 tons), 14 hovercraft, 3 submersible boats, 74 fast attack craft, 200+ miscellaneous small craft, 3 mine layers, 2 mine countermeasure ships, 26 landing craft,  and 28 support ships. (See: Islamic Republic of Iran Navy). This is a lot of little ships and some significant big ships. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps also maintains a large number of small craft (See: Navy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps). Some/most are counted above.

Anyhow, it is clear that the Iranian Navy is probably capable of shutting down traffic in the Gulf and this probably cannot be halted by the other Gulf navies. And then there are the air forces (subject of a post tomorrow).

Defense Spending in the Persian/Arabian Gulf

Source: SIPRI

A modern military costs money, especially if one is developing a capable air force and navy. This are big ticket items. Let of us for a moment look at what is being spent by states bordering the Persian/Arabian Gulf, as this seems to be the flashpoint “de jure.”

Saudi Arabia is the big spender there with 67.6 billion spend on defense in 2018 (source: SIPRI 2019 fact sheet). This actually makes it the third largest defense budget in the world, ahead of India, France, Russia, UK, Germany, etc. It spends 8.8% of its GDP on defense.

Some other Gulf states are also spending heavily. Oman spends 12.1% of its GDP on defense, although its GDP is small. Bahrain spends 4.1% of its GDP on defense. In comparison the U.S. spends 3.2% of its GDP on defense, China 1.9%, Russia 4.3%, Iraq 3.9%, Ukraine 3.4%, France 2.3%, UK 1.8% and Germany 1.2%.

In contrast, Iran spends 13.2 billion (or 19.6 billion in 2019 according to IISS). This is 3.1% to 4.6% of Iran’s GDP. This is around 20% to 30% of what Saudi Arabia spends and around 2% to 3% of what the U.S. spends.

So, What Would We Do with 120,000 Troops in the Middle East?

Parade of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps tank transporters, 21 September 2012

The New York Times reported yesterday that DOD (Department of Defense) has assembled a plan to move as many as 120,000 U.S. troops to the Middle East. The article is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/world/middleeast/us-military-plans-iran.html

A few quotes (bolding in mine):

  1. “…last Thursday, Acting Defense secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East….
  2. “…should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said.”
  3. “They do not call for a land invasion of Iran, which would require vastly more troops, officials said.”
  4. “More than a half-dozen American national security officers….agreed to discuss them with the The New York Times….”

Now, this really cannot be an invasion force for Iran. Iran is a country of 82 million people with an armed force of over 500,000. Of that force, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps makes up 120,000 (about 100,000 in their ground forces) while the Iranian Army consist of 350,000. They also have a 37,000 person air force, 18,000 person navy and 15,000 air defense force. Their army budget is 2 trillion, which is about 0.3 percent of what we spend. All this data is from Wikipedia.

We occupied Iraq in 2003 with an initial invasion force of 75,000 U. S. ground troops, and that ended up not going too well. Iraq had a population of 24 million at the time. Also, Tehran is a long way from the Persian Gulf. Assuming we have learned something in the interim, this probably means we would be looking for an invasion force of several hundred thousand. So, this is probably not an invasion force.

I assume a significant portion of this force is air and naval.

We did previously intervene in the Persian Gulf during the “Tanker War” between Iran and Iraq. These two nations had been at war since 1980. It is estimated that during their “Tanker War” (1984-1988) 430 civilian sailors were killed. The U.S. became involved on 23 July 1987 with Operation Earnest Will. This operation, which including escorting tankers in the Persian Gulf, led to a U.S. build up of over 30 warships. The biggest loss of American life was an incident that occurred before the tanker escort operation was declared when on 17 May 1987 an Iraqi (not Iranian) F-1 Mirage plane accidently fired two Exocet missiles at the USS Stark, with 37 sailors killed and 21 wounded. The U.S. also lost 2 U.S. Marines killed during Operation Praying Mantis on 18 April 1988 and 10 U.S. Navy wounded on 14 April 1988 (from the USS Samuel B. Roberts hitting a mine). U.S. ships were fired upon, struck mines or took other military actions on July 24 1987, September 22-26, October 10, October 15, October 18, April 14, April 18, July 3 and July 14 1988. There were at least 18 U.S. civilian seamen injured by (Iranian) mines.

During Operation Praying Mantis Iran lost the frigate Sahand (45 crew killed), a gunboat (11 crew killed) and 3 speedboats. They also lost 5 killed in a U.S. raid on Iran Ajr on 22 September 1987 and three other Iranian boats were sunk shortly afterwards. There were some other losses, but I have not tracked them all.

Then there was the USS Vincennes which on 3 July 1988 sunk two Iranian gunboats and then accidently shot down Iran Air Flight 655 for the loss of 290 civilians.

TDI Friday Read: Iranian Casualties In The 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War

This series of posts was based on the article “Iranian Casualties in the Iran-Iraq War: A Reappraisal,” by H. W. Beuttel, originally published in the December 1997 edition of the International TNDM Newsletter. Mr Beuttel was a former U.S. Army intelligence officer employed as a military analyst by Boeing Research & Development at the time of original publication. He also authored several updates to this original article, to be posted at a later date, which refined and updated his analysis.

Iranian Casualties in the Iran-Iraq War: A Reappraisal (1)

Iranian Missing In Action From The Iran-Iraq War (2)

Iranian Prisoners Of War From The Iran-Iraq War (3)

The “Missing” Iranian Prisoners Of War From The Iran-Iraq War (4)

Iranian Killed In Action and Died of Wounds In The Iran-Iraq War (5)

Iranian Wounded In Action In The Iran-Iraq War (6)

Iranian Chemical Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War (7)

Iranian Civilian Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War (8)

A Summary Estimate Of Iranian Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War (9)

 

A Summary Estimate Of Iranian Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War (9)

[Conflict Iran]

[This post is based on “Iranian Casualties in the Iran-Iraq War: A Reappraisal,” by H. W. Beuttel, originally published in the December 1997 edition of the International TNDM Newsletter.]


Posts in this series:
Iranian Casualties in the Iran-Iraq War: A Reappraisal
Iranian Missing In Action From The Iran-Iraq War
Iranian Prisoners of War From The Iran-Iraq War
The “Missing” Iranian Prisoners of War From The Iran-Iraq War
Iranian Killed In Action And Died Of Wounds In The Iran-Iraq War
Iranian Wounded In Action In The Iran-Iraq War
Iranian Chemical Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War
Iranian Civil Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War
A Summary Estimate Of Iranian Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War


If we estimate that at least 5,000,000 troops (about 12% of Iran’s then population) served in the war zone, then the military casualty distribution is not less than the following (Bold indicates the author’s choice from ranges):

Killed in Action/Died of Wounds: 188,000 (156,000-196,000) (17%)

Wounded in Action: 945,000 (754,000-1,110,000) (83%)

Severely Wounded/Disabled: 200,000 (18%) (Note: carve out of total wounded)

Missing in Action: 73,000 (6%) (Note: Carve out of total KIA plus several thousand possible defectors/collaborators)

PoW: 39,000-44,000

Total Military Battle Casualties (KIA + WIA): 1,133,000-1,302,000 (28% theater rate)

Possible Non-Battle Military Deaths: 74,000

Non-Battle Military Injuries: No idea.

With Civilian KIA (11,000) and WIA (34,000) and “chemical” (45,000) Total Hostile Action Casualties: 1,223,000

Possible Military Non-Battle Deaths (74,000):1,297,000

Total Deaths Due to the Imposed War: 273,000 (104% of Pentagon estimate of 262,000)

Of 5,000,000 estimated Iranian combatants (1 million regular army, 2 million Pasdaran, 2 million Baseej)

~ 4% were Killed in Action/Missing in Action

~ 4% were Disabled

~ 13% were Wounded

~ 1% were Non-Battle Deaths

~ 1% were PoWs

Total military losses all known causes ~ 27%

The military battle casualty total percentile (27%) is intermediate between that of World War I (50% ~ British Army) and World War II (13% ~ U.S. Army/U.S. Marine Corps, 22% British Army).[118]

The author acknowledges the highly speculative nature of much of the data and argument presented above. It is offered as a preliminary starting point to further study. As such, the author would appreciate hearing from anyone with additional data on this subject. In particular he would invite the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to provide any information that would corroborate, correct or expand on the information presented in this article.

NOTES

[118] Kenneth R. Timmerman, Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991, pp. 406-407, n. 3

Iranian Civilian Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War (8)

[Conflict Iran]

[This post is based on “Iranian Casualties in the Iran-Iraq War: A Reappraisal,” by H. W. Beuttel, originally published in the December 1997 edition of the International TNDM Newsletter.]


Posts in this series:
Iranian Casualties in the Iran-Iraq War: A Reappraisal
Iranian Missing In Action From The Iran-Iraq War
Iranian Prisoners of War From The Iran-Iraq War
The “Missing” Iranian Prisoners of War From The Iran-Iraq War
Iranian Killed In Action And Died Of Wounds In The Iran-Iraq War
Iranian Wounded In Action In The Iran-Iraq War
Iranian Chemical Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War
Iranian Civil Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War
A Summary Estimate Of Iranian Casualties In The Iran-Iraq War


The Iran-Iraq War produced remarkably few civilian casualties compared to World War I or World War II rates. UNICEF data suggests that prior to World War I, civilians accounted for only 5% of all deaths in a given war. This rose to 15% in World War I and an astounding 65% in World War II.[113] Iran claims 11,000 civilian deaths as a result of the war primarily through Iraqi air and missile strikes. The author‘s own study of Iranian civilian deaths places it at about 8,800 known deaths, indicating this number is probably very close to the true figure. If so, civilian deaths accounted for just 5% of total war dead, a turn-of-the-century standard. The number of wounded has not been released, but this author’s figures can account for over 34,000 civilian wounded by air and missile strikes. Further, Iran claims 45,000 civilian “chemical” casualties. If all claims are true then approximately 90,000 civilians became casualties of the war.

This yields a military to civilian casualty ratio of 11:1. This is far better than the ratio claimed in recent wars of 1:9. This suggests that despite the hysteria surrounding “War of the Cities,” the Iranian civilian population was not severely at risk during the war. Compare this to World War II England where the one-year German V-1/V-2 campaign killed 8,588 and wounded 46,838.[114] Then contrast it to total English civilian casualties during World War II at 60,000 dead and 86,800 wounded due to the blitz and buzz bombs. U.K. military killed, wounded and missing (excluding PoW) were 582,900 in World War II giving a military-to-civilian casualty ratio of 4:1.[115] Of course the World War II German bombing and missile campaigns against England were far more severe than that experienced by Iran at the hands of Iraq.

Civilian chemical casualties match military in magnitude. At first this might seem strange. I have found no World War I data on military-to-civilian casualty ratios as regards chemical agents, so there is no point of comparison or contrast here. The high number of civilian chemical casualties seems to be a function of several factors. First some 2,000 Iranian towns and villages lay in areas where Iraqi forces employed chemical weapons.[116] Secondly, Iraqi chemical strikes were often delivered deep into Iranian rear areas to attack reinforcements and support troops. Casualties were often high as the rear echelon troops were less well equipped and prepared to cope with chemical attacks.[117] In these rear area attacks the civilian population density must have been much higher than on the front line. Further, civilians probably had no means of chemical defense. Witness the chemical attack on Halabja in March 1988 with mustard, nerve and cyanogen chloride which killed some 4,000-5,000 civilians and maimed 7,000 others, This may explain the 1:1 relationship between overall Iranian military and civilian chemical casualties.

Mr. Beuttel, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, was employed as a military analyst by Boeing Research & Development at the time of original publication. The views and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Boeing Company.

NOTES

[113] Abstracts Obtained from Iran on Medical Research Conducted After the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War,” www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/IRMED/IRANTOC.html

[114] Charles E. Heller, Chemical Warfare in World War I: The American Experience 1917-1918, Leavenworth Papers No. 10, Ft. Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, 1984, p. 67; Denis Winter, Death’s Men: Soldiers of the Great War,New York, Penguin, Viking, 1978, p. 124.

[115] “Bis(2-chloroethyl)thioether, C4H8SCI2,” www.ch.ic.ac.uk/vchemlib/mol/horrible/War/mustard

[116] Anthony Coordesman, The Lessons of Modern War Volume II: The Iran-Iraq War, Boulder, CO; Westview Press, 1990, p. 525, n. 56.

[117] Kenneth R. Timmerman, Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991, pp. 145-146.