There is worry in some quarters that the U.S. may become involved in a Middle Eastern war. I think there is nearly zero chance of that happening, but the motto of the Defense Department, like the Boy Scouts, is: be prepared. So the USS Nimitz is cruising toward the Persian Gulf.
This article in the Telegraph by former Royal Navy officer Tom Sharpe is behind a paywall, but that link should work for you. The headline: “The most powerful conventional engine of warfare ever built is headed for Iran.”
A US Carrier Strike Group (CSG) boasts formidable firepower. It centres on a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with 65-70 fighter jets, including multiple types of F-18 Hornet and now increasingly F-35C stealth jets, plus radar/command-and-control planes and an assortment of helicopters.
Traditionally the carrier was supported by two Arleigh Burke class destroyers and one Ticonderoga class cruiser (although increasingly this is becoming three Arleigh Burkes as the Ticos reach the end of their life). These mighty warships can create a defence bubble resistant even to hypersonic and ballistic weapons, and bombard shore targets a thousand miles away with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Somewhere nearby below the surface, will be found a nuclear powered attack submarine, armed with more Tomahawks and torpedoes.
With its own intelligence and surveillance bubble around it, a US carrier group is the most powerful, versatile and well defended conventional weapons system-of-systems ever created.
There has been some angst over the U.S. Navy’s state of preparedness, but this Royal Navy officer doesn’t seem to share that concern.
And now there are about to be two of these in the US Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility – the Middle East. The USS Carl Vinson has been there for a while now, conducting strikes against the Houthis and keeping watch once they stopped shooting back. Meanwhile the USS Nimitz is coming fast from west of the Philippines to the Malacca Strait and presumably onwards to the Gulf.
This gives President Trump more options if needed. But it is also directly relevant to the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz:
There are also significant consequences for Freedom of Navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. On this I need to be very clear – Iran absolutely has the ability to close this strait. Between their mine layers, boarding ability, fast attack craft, uncrewed surface drones, midget submarines and mobile ballistic missiles (in that order) they can either physically close it (with mines) or, by mixing the above, create the insurance conditions for ships to deem it not worth the risk, which amounts to the same thing. Mine clearance is one of the US Navy’s few weaknesses.
***
Having said the Iranians can close the strait, I don’t think they will. Too many countries – such as China, India and indeed the Iranians themselves – need it to stay open.More likely in my view is that they will seek to contest the Strait in some form, relearning the lessons that they originally taught the Houthis. Boarding operations, hijackings, harassment and targeted missile attacks are more likely. And we know from the Red Sea what happens next. Ships stop going through and oil prices climb: and unlike the Red Sea, there’s no alternative route for the Strait of Hormuz.
This is why the Nimitz is coming, and why there are B-2 Stealth bombers deployed to Diego Garcia, doubtless with Massive Ordnance Penetrators – the unique US weapon which could finish off even the toughest, deepest-buried Iranian nuclear facilities.
“Don’t mess around in the Strait or we’ll have to get involved,” is the blunt message behind the latest carrier move. This is, and always has been, the beauty of a well formed Strike Group – setting the conditions to avoid conflict by being ready to join in if that fails.
Peace through strength. Some MAGA warriors claim to have believed that, in Trump, they were voting for a 1930s-style isolationist. I find this hard to credit. Nothing in Trump’s record suggests it. Would an isolationist have appointed Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, or Marco Rubio as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor? I don’t think so. Trump is very much in the Reaganite tradition, and–by the way–Reagan never had to fight a war.
