Skip to content

Invest1 publisher3 min readPublished

Iran moves rapid-reaction and artillery units to four borders and the Makran coast

Tehran's unified command is treating renewed US action as a settled decision and has threatened the region's American bases, while the chairman of parliament's security committee says the Hormuz agreement is being held up.

The Investor · Invest desk

Photograph accompanying Iran moves rapid-reaction and artillery units to four borders and the Makran coast
Photo: mehrnews.com

What happened

  • The Iranian Army said it had deployed military units, including rapid reaction forces, along the northwestern, western, southwestern and northeastern borders and on the Makran coast.
  • Tasnim reported that Khatam al-Anbiya said the United States, with the approval of some regional countries, had decided once again to resume actions against Iran at a joint meeting held in a European country.
  • The headquarters, which oversees unified command of Iran's armed forces, issued the statement on the 20th and warned regional countries not to take part in the American action.
  • Regional states that continue a double-track policy and go along with US aggression will all be regarded as accomplices, the headquarters said, and should no longer expect restraint or tolerance.

Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made

Why it matters

  • exposure The accomplice wording attaches Iranian retaliation to the host government as well as to the American installation on its territory, so the political risk sits with the state that signed the basing arrangement.
  • constraint With the Omani agreement on the Strait of Hormuz unsigned, anyone pricing transit or hull risk through the strait is left with a dispute about who is delaying it, since there is no dated settlement to price against.
  • decision A reconsidered NPT membership would remove IAEA inspection. That leaves the next negotiator choosing between an unverified agreement and none.
  • contradiction One arm of the Iranian state describes an American decision already taken while another argues over the timetable of an agreement with Oman. The two positions give different odds on the same week.

The line in all of this that touches shipping is Oman's. Ebrahim Azizi, chairman of the National Security Committee of Iran's parliament, said Oman's delay, under US influence, of an agreement on the Strait of Hormuz would harm both Oman and regional security [10]. He addressed the Gulf states directly. "It would be better for the countries on the southern shore of the Persian Gulf to recognize that they must cooperate and coordinate with the Islamic Republic," he said [11].

The army's account of itself is narrower than the headquarters' politics. "Special forces, rapid reaction units, mechanized units and artillery units are conducting operations in border areas with the support they need," Iranian Army Commander Ali Jahanshahi said [4]. Four unit types in one sentence, and five zones in the army's list, of which the Makran coast is the only sea frontage [1][2]. The first half of that sentence describes formations. "With the support they need" describes logistics, and logistics is the half a deployment either demonstrates or fails to.

The threat to American forces is collective and, in the headquarters' own wording, unbounded. If the United States "makes any mistake against Iran, all U.S. bases and assets in the region will become targets of continuous, effective and painful attacks, without any limits or considerations," the statement said [5]. Two of the three warnings carried in that statement address regional states, and one addresses Washington [3].

Azizi also put inspection access into play. "If Iran's membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) no longer serves its interests, we will reconsider whether to remain a party to it," he said, warning that "if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues its one-sided behavior, it will face a serious and regrettable response" [8]. A nuclear file is verified through that access.

In my view this is pressure aimed at the Gulf capitals that host American forces, not notice served on Washington, and the evidence is in who gets addressed: the command warned regional countries not to take part [1], told them they would be regarded as accomplices [6], and reserved one warning for the United States [3]. The counter-thesis is the simpler one. A general staff that expects to fight moves special forces, mechanized and artillery units to its borders first [3] and talks about negotiations afterwards, and Azizi's judgement that resuming talks with the United States would be pointless [7] is then a description of the situation. Duration separates the two. If the units stay in place after an Omani agreement is signed, the deployment was leverage on the hosts; if the Omani channel closes while reinforcement continues, "pointless" was meant literally.

What to watch

  • Whether Oman announces terms or a date for the Strait of Hormuz agreement that Azizi says is being delayed under US influence.
  • Any IAEA statement on inspector access in Iran, the first place a reconsidered NPT membership would show up as more than a conditional.
  • Whether any Gulf government answers publicly after being told it would be treated as an accomplice.
Loading claim ledger
Loading source directory links
Loading share composer
Loading topic controls
Loading related stories