Feral Jundi

Thursday, June 20, 2019

Maritime Security: Tanker Attacks Spark Call-Ups For Guards

Filed under: Iran,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 11:49 PM

I haven’t posted a MarSec deal in awhile, and I thought this was relevant. Basically tankers have been getting attacked in the Gulf of Oman, and this is really freaking out the shipping industry. The various MarSec companies are getting bombarded with calls for security, and it is reminiscent of the days when the Somali Pirates was the big problem. The difference here is Iran, and/or it’s proxies are the attackers. So this is a case of private security defending vessels against state sponsored actions. Crazy…. Kind of like defending merchant ships against Germany’s U-boats during WW 1 and 2.

The article also delves into what has happened to the MarSec industry over the years. Salaries have decreased, and cheaper guards have been used to fill the need for armed guards on boats. The problem with this is that they may be cheap, but you get what you pay for. Some Indian or Eastern European guard is definitely not the equivalent to a highly trained Royal Marine or Navy SEAL… Just saying. But that is where the industry has gone over the years. There have also been incidents where guards have been imprisoned by states, which is an interesting thought for this deal with Iran.

Iran might view the ships as targets to not only blow up, but to also take hostages. You never know with this stuff and everything has to be considered with this type of enemy. Just look at the historic examples of what Iran has done. 52 American hostages were held for 444 days back in the late seventies as a means of attacking the west. So a guard force is definitely important for these vessels.

In the case of these recent attacks, limpet mines were attached to the vessels. Any guard force assigned to a vessel will have to have the means to look for these things. I would say SEALs or similar former military types, with a diving background and naval special warfare experience would be the optimum resource for this type of threat.

Other types of attacks might include missiles or armed UAVs, like what the Houthis have been using in Yemen. Do shipping companies have a counter-UAV capability? Or a counter-missile battery? Good question, but if munitions like this are launched at ships, shipping companies will have to re-calibrate.

The other thought is fire fighting and mass casualty on a tanker. To have to evacuate and abandon ship, as well as deal with casualties from something like this, requires some squared away folks. And all of this could be going on while under attack! For shipping companies that are trying to think this through, this reality must be considered. This isn’t pirates trying to steal your vessel, this is combatants trying to take your ship down or take hostages or just kill everyone onboard. Choose your guard force wisely.

Another factor is all out war. If war breaks out between the US and Iran, western shipping will be just one target of many that would be on the table for opponents like Iran. We have troops and contractors stationed in Iraq, as well as western oil companies. Iran could definitely make that a target. Rockets and mortars have been launched at US troops and oil companies recently in Iraq, and that might be a sign of things to come as this escalates. Contractors will definitely be called upon for evacuation missions and protecting the embassy in Baghdad. We will see how this develops. –Matt

Edit: 06/24/2019 More articles have come out about the increased demand for guards. This particular interview was between German newspaper Deutsche Welle and a Greek PMSC. The individual they talked to was Dimitris Maniatis, chief commercial officer of Diaplous Group. Here is the quote that was of interest to me. They have to use unarmed teams, which is problematic. I have written about this in the past when it came to dealing with Somali Pirates.
Quote: DW: How have the recent events in the Middle East impacted demand for security in the region? Dimitris Maniatis: After the May 12 attacks on the four tankers anchored off Fujairah, we saw an increased concern from the international maritime community about the safety and security of their vessels in the region. However, after the attack on June 13 in the Gulf of Oman, there has been an intensification of the interests of all the stakeholders in the maritime industry for the security of their crews and vessels. We’ve have seen about a 12% to 17% rise in the actual requests that we receive for security in that particular region.

The locations where the June 13 attacks took place are not within the designated high-risk area of the Indian Ocean. So we cannot operate with weapons in those areas. Now, the concern from vessel operators is for ships going into the Persian Gulf, trading within the Persian Gulf, and then exiting the Persian Gulf. So if we are to provide security services to those vessels we cannot embark weapons, which can only exist where there is a mandate for an armed response.

Tanker attacks spark call-ups for ships’ guards
David Sheppard and Harry Dempsey
June 19, 2019
It is one thing to ward off Somali pirates. It is another to tackle the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
The maritime security industry has experienced a flood of demand from shippers spooked by last week’s attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman, which the US and UK have blamed on Iran.
“We have been flat out and have deployed an additional 70 guards in the Gulf since the attacks last week,” said John Thompson, co-founder of UK-based Ambrey, which over the past decade has become the largest provider of security personnel to ships.
Mr Thompson expects the number of security guards deployed on vessels to increase by approximately 25 per cent in the coming weeks, based on the number of inquiries Ambrey has received.
Dimitris Maniatis, chief operating officer at Diaplous, said his Cyprus-based security firm had witnessed a “12 per cent rise in requests” for placing guards on ships in the Gulf.
It represents a welcome boost for the industry, which has experienced a lean period as piracy off the Horn of Africa diminished over the past few years just as an influx of cheap labour drove down costs.
The cost of hiring a team of three or four guards for a 12-day journey has dropped from the industry peak of $40,000 to well less than half that level. One executive said that previous pricing “wasn’t sustainable”. Now guards on ships have become a “commoditised service”.
“It’s not the rock star days that it used to be,” said Patrick Rogers at S-RM, a risk consultancy that advises a number of major shipping companies
When pirate attacks off Somalia became commonplace last decade — inspiring a Tom Hanks film detailing the capture of the Maersk Alabama cargo ship — the number of security firms offering guards proliferated, often founded by ex-special forces or other elite military personnel.
Guards were generally drawn from the ranks of elite military units in the UK — usually former Royal Marines, Parachute Regiment, or ex-special forces soldiers such as those that have served in the SAS or SBS.
(more…)

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

UAE: Saudi Arabia And UAE Open Strategic Pipelines To Bypass Strait Of Hormuz

Filed under: Iran,Saudi Arabia,UAE — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 3:04 AM

Highlighting the importance of the strait, Cyrus Vance, former US secretary of state, called it “the jugular vein of the West”, while Ali Fadavi, of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, said Tehran had the ability to “not allow even a single drop of oil to pass” the strait.
“Multiple pipelines would partly negate the Iranian threat to block [the Strait of] Hormuz,” said Rafael Kandiyoti, senior research fellow at Imperial College London and author of Pipelines: Oil Flows and Crude Politics. “Showing increasing pipeline capacity suits the purposes of Saudi Arabia.”

This is big news, just because it gives these countries an alternative to shipping oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Although my first thought after reading this is that Iran will want to attack these pipelines as a way to shut down oil shipments–if Iran is attacked by Israel (and the west) because of it’s nuclear program.

If Iran is attacked, they will no doubt try to strike back by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. They will also try to attack and destroy any oil infrastructure in any of the countries whom have key oil partnerships with the west. Saudi Arabia and the UAE would be classified as such.

With that said, it makes sense why the UAE would want to plus up their military with combat veterans from Colombia. They are going to need some serious manpower to effectively cover down on 220 miles of pipeline to protect it from attacks. The pipeline also makes it’s way through some interesting mountainous terrain that small attack groups could certainly take advantage of if you do not have an effective defense.

Interesting stuff and we will see how these pipelines fair, if in fact Iran decides to target them after an attack. –Matt

 

The Habshan-Fujairah pipeline, UAE. Photo – Arabianoilandgas.com

 

Saudi Arabia and UAE open strategic pipelines to bypass Hormuz
July 16, 2012
Iranian threats to close the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in response to US and European-led sanctions and pressure over the country’s nuclear programme will seem less alarming with the opening of new Saudi-UAE oil pipelines.
Although the Middle-eastern super-producers did not specify that the pipelines, which bypass the busy shipping lane – responsible for carrying a third of the world’s shipped oil – were a direct response to Iranian sabre-rattling, the move is seen as a pre-emptive strike against an action that would spell economic catastrophe for the region and the West.
The opening of the pipelines comes as diplomatic tensions over Tehran’s nuclear programme – believed to be gearing up to produce weapons grade material – increase and Iran’s oil production, due to the sanctions, has fallen to its lowest level in more than 20 years. (more…)

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Iraq: US Embassy Staff Might Be Reduced, And Iraq Continues To Hassle PSC’s

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iran,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 3:24 AM

Approved movements have been subject to stops, detentions and confiscation of equipment without justification, impacting delivery of equipment, supplies, and materials to the US embassy, bases and offices throughout the country,” said the letter, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.
The Congressional Research Service said last May that the State Department estimated the number of security contractors working for it in Iraq would reach 5,500, “with some 1,500 providing personal security for diplomatic movements and an additional 4,000 providing perimeter security.”
Brooks said “our hope is that the US government will be a bit more proactive,” as the government and embassy, in “our impression, has not been very active in trying to help the Iraqis address this problem.

This first story below is from the New York Times, so take it with a grain of salt. lol And of course as soon as it came out, an edit was made that showed that the NYT jumped the gun a little on this. With that said, it is wise that if you are in WPS (mobile or static security), or one of the numerous contractors assigned to do convoy operations for logistics, then it pays to pay attention to this stuff.

The second story just emphasizes what Iraq is doing to security companies as they try to operate there. If the Embassy can’t get supplies, then point the finger at Iraq for holding up those convoys at the border or for hassling security contractors about paper work/visas/licenses that Iraq has failed provide or update.

In short, things in Iraq are getting a little dicey now that the troops are gone, and the US mission there is having to adjust to this new environment. This was to be expected and there will be many hiccups along the way. The US is also experiencing economic issues and an upcoming election. So cost savings will be a factor, and reducing waste in our overseas operations will be necessary if the current administration wants to show it is serious about saving money (and getting re-elected as a result).

But this administration does not want a failed Iraq mission under it’s belt. They have already cut the troops from Iraq earlier than expected, which is not the smartest thing strategically, but it makes sense politically. But cutting security will only add one more planet into alignment for a really bad situation or situations that could truly stain a political campaign. Security should be the last thing you mess with, and especially in that chaotic and extremely dangerous environment.

There is also politics and corruption in Iraq that is impacting operations. A visa or license or whatever is required for the companies to operate can be a simple and fair process if Iraq wants these companies there. Or it can be a complex and unfair process if these officials have other things in mind. Maybe they are looking for kickbacks, and purposely targeting foreign companies so that Iraq companies are able to secure all of this work. Especially for supplying the embassy, or for oil related security contracts. (Strategy Page is echoing the same thing in their post about PSC’s in Iraq and the Embassy)

Perhaps this was a concession when the Sunni-bloc came back in to join parliament? Perhaps there is a focus on attacking logistics using government and political mechanisms, so that the Embassy is forced to reduce in size so it can be weaker for an attack. Or get more Iraqis involved with working at the Embassy, so as to get more spies or even attackers on the inside?

Who knows? All I know is that there is a reason why Iraq is doing this, and that reason often revolves around money or extortion of some sort. Meaning ‘if you do this, maybe we will do this’. We see the same thing happening in Afghanistan, and maybe Iraq is taking notes from the Afghans on how to play the US. It is ironic to me that we have the largest Embassies in the world in both countries, have expended much American/Coalition blood and treasure in both countries, and yet simple matters like visas, licenses or even a MOU or SOFA cannot be worked out? That corruption in these countries is trumping our so-called ‘diplomatic’ missions there. Certainly we can do better and get better for what has been invested.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that there is a third party that has a say so in this matter. That would be the insurgents and jihadists in Iraq who are in the shadows and doing all they can to attack Iraq and the US mission there. You also have Iran doing what they can to exert influence. You can slash the staff at the Embassy, but the security requirement to protect that Embassy does not change. That’s unless the grounds of the Embassy are slashed as well and given back to the Iraqis.

But as you give up more ground, then that gives more ground to the enemy so they can maneuver closer for attacks. If patrols in the area decrease, then that means the enemy can launch more mortars/rockets, drive more VBIED’s, or use more suicide assaulters. So security is still essential and will be even more important as you give up more territory.

I could see the mobile side of WPS decreasing a little, but not by much. If there is still going to be 1,000 diplomats as opposed to 2,000 diplomats (if they are halved according to the article), then those 1,000 will still have to do their missions in Iraq. Or does state plan on never leaving their Embassy?

We could also have an extremely small footprint in Iraq, and bring it on par with the size of other Embassies in the world. But there are a couple of issues that are front and center for the US, which to me justifies a presence there. Oil, Iran, Jihadists and the continuing collapse of regimes in the Middle East because of the Arab Spring (Syria comes to mind). If we can keep Iraq functioning and focused on their oil goals, and goals for their nation’s well being, then that is a good thing. How many diplomats that takes and how we do that is out of my lane. But these are considerations when we think about why we are there.

Now the one thing that looked like it was getting a look for cuts was the police training contract, and that would also include all the logistics required for that. So that might be a big savings and reduction right there.

One State Department program that is likely to be scrutinized is an ambitious program to train the Iraqi police, which is costing about $500 million this year — far less than the nearly $1 billion that the embassy originally intended to spend. The program has generated considerable skepticism within the State Department — one of the officials interviewed predicted that the program could be scrapped later this year — because of the high cost of the support staff, the inability of police advisers to leave their bases because of the volatile security situation and a lack of support by the Iraqi government.

Interesting stuff and I would like to hear what you guys think? Either way, I will keep my eye on this as it develops. –Matt

Edit: 02/10/2012- It looks like State is trying to clarify a little more as to what they plan on doing. Here is a quote below. Also be sure to follow Diplopundit’s take on the whole thing, because they are also questioning the security cuts (if made), and who would step in as replacements (maybe Iraqi security?). I doubt they would go this path and DoS is not about to put the lives of it’s diplomats at the hands of Iraqi security forces….quite yet.

The State Department has asked each component of the massive U.S. diplomatic mission in Baghdad to analyze how a 25 percent cut would affect operations, part of a rapidly moving attempt to save money and establish what a top official on Wednesday called “a more normalized embassy presence.”
“We’re going to be looking at how we’re going to do that over the next year,” said Deputy Secretary of State Thomas R. Nides. “What we’re not going to do is make knee-jerk decisions” that could jeopardize the security of the thousands of U.S. citizens working in Iraq, he said.

 

US Embassy in Iraq.

 

U.S. Planning to Slash Iraq Embassy Staff by as Much as Half
By TIM ARANGO
February 7, 2012
Less than two months after American troops left, the State Department is preparing to slash by as much as half the enormous diplomatic presence it had planned for Iraq, a sharp sign of declining American influence in the country.
Officials in Baghdad and Washington said that Ambassador James F. Jeffrey and other senior State Department officials were reconsidering the size and scope of the embassy, where the staff has swelled to nearly 16,000 people, mostly contractors.
The expansive diplomatic operation and the $750 million embassy building, the largest of its kind in the world, were billed as necessary to nurture a postwar Iraq on its shaky path to democracy and establish normal relations between two countries linked by blood and mutual suspicion. But the Americans have been frustrated by what they see as Iraqi obstructionism and are now largely confined to the embassy because of security concerns, unable to interact enough with ordinary Iraqis to justify the $6 billion annual price tag.

(more…)

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Iraq: US Says No Decision On Keeping Troops In Iraq

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iran,Iraq,Military News — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 3:03 PM

This is an interesting development. Many folks were speculating that a much higher number of troops would stick around, and then this rumor of 3,000 troops came out and all hell broke loose. lol The article below mentions politics as a driver for this type of decision making….go figure?

The concern here is that if there is too small of a footprint, that these troops will be sitting ducks in Iraq, or Iraq will not be able to deal with their security issues without sufficient troop presence. My concern though is that companies in Iraq that are dependent upon the security services of the current troops, will have to once again re-adjust to the politics of the matter. Planning might have included a certain amount of US troop presence in specific areas, and all of their war fighting tools and capabilities that come with that presence. So if they were planning on a 10,000 troop presence, and now it is 3,000, that can have an impact.

It also can impact the logistics. If contracting companies were planning for a set amount of troops based off the feedback war planners were giving them, then those companies have made their moves and planed for those contracts. So yet again, the back and forth on the troop presence in Iraq has an impact on this industry. Of course companies will flex and adapt, but I am sure this is causing a lot of headaches.

The other aspect of Iraq that needs to be mentioned is the Iranian influence there. As we speak, rockets and mortars continue to fall on the various FOBs and outposts in Iraq. These munitions come from all sorts of sources, but the biggest arms provider is Iran. Their goal is to help along the exit of US Troops and destabilize the region so their pet leaders can rise to the top (like Sadr). So the environment in Iraq is less troops, but tons of contractors, and lots of Iranian weapons and influence pouring into the country to help destabilize it and in the long run control it with puppet leaders.

Iraq is also in dire need of maintenance of weapons and equipment, foreign investment to include oil contracts, training and upkeep of security forces, etc. If Iraq cannot depend upon a US troop presence to help in these areas, then they will probably depend on contractors to fill these needs. Which our industry will fill the need, but yet again we have the wolf called Iran and Al Qaeda still doing their best to do harm.

I contend that private industry can deal with these sets of problems, but private industry does not have the same freedom of war fighting and weapons/hardware that US troops enjoyed. So in essence, private industry will have to accomplish what the military used to do, and yet with one hand tied behind it’s back. If Iraq sinks into Civil War again, or the pace of war and problems pick up, contractors will be right in the middle of that. –Matt

 

US says no decision on keeping troops in Iraq
By LARA JAKES
September 7, 2011
The Obama administration pushed back Wednesday on reports it has decided to keep a few thousand troops in Iraq next year — a number that will do little to ease security concerns but may be too big for White House advisers who are worried about the slumping U.S. economy and the president’s re-election chances.
In Washington, new Joint Chiefs chairman Army Gen. Martin Dempsey and Undersecretary of State nominee Wendy Sherman separately said there has been no decision on how many troops might stay.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James F. Jeffrey went a step further, soundly dismissing as false news reports that about 3,000 troops would remain in Iraq beyond the final Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline.
He said that figure has not been part of ongoing discussions in Baghdad, where both governments have been weighing whether as many as 10,000 U.S. forces should stay.

(more…)

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Industry Talk: Extremists Use Iranian Weapons, Iraq Command Spokesman Says

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iran,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:39 AM

This is not particularly new, and I have talked about IRAMs and EFPs here in the past. But it is still important to keep the information flow going out there as far as what are the ongoing threats. Military forces and contractors are still in Iraq, and they still face these threats. It is also important to point out that we have seen the highest amount of deaths in Iraq since 2009.

Both of these types of weapons are pretty specialized, and it would make sense that Iran would be behind the construction of ‘effective’ IRAM’s and EFP’s. It is also important to note that the spokesman made a very interesting point about the construction of this stuff. Here is the quote, and this kind of goes against the conventional wisdom about how ‘easy’ these weapons are to produce.

Neither weapon is something someone can produce on a lathe in a garage. The EFP requires very precise machining, and the explosive charge is cast. For the IRAM to be effective, it requires specially machined parts to attach the larger warhead to the missile.
The firing mechanisms are factory-made electronic parts that have no other use than firing off IRAMs or EFPs.
And the forensic teams can categorically state that the weapons are from Iran. In one case, an IRAM built in Iran was turned over to the Quds Force – part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – and then given to an Iraqi extremist in Kitab Hezbollah, a terrorist group that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Quds Force, officials said.

So there you have it, and take that for what it is worth. I would imagine that insurgents would take the path of least resistance when it comes to weapons. If Quds are handing these things out, then why go through the effort to make these weapons in a garage?  DIY weapons are nice and all, but getting them for free is better. Especially if Iran is logistically able to keep the flow of weapons consistent and sufficient. –Matt

Extremists Use Iranian Weapons, Iraq Command Spokesman Says
By Jim Garamone?American Forces Press Service
CAMP VICTORY, Iraq, July 11, 2011 – There is no doubt that deadly weapons being used against American forces in Iraq originated in Iran, a U.S. Forces Iraq spokesman said here today.
Army Maj. Gen. Jeff Buchanan led reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta on a tour of Joint Task Force Troy here, where they were free to talk to the men and women who examine all enemy ordnance to determine its origin and to look for ways to defeat the threat or prosecute those who launch attacks.
Part of the unit is the combined explosive exploitation cell laboratories. “When p[explosive ordnance disposal] teams go out and they respond to an explosive event, they collect whatever evidence they find and bring it back,” said a military official at the unit, speaking on background. “We take that evidence and take it apart and exploit it.”
The team looks at the weapon from a technical and chemical viewpoint. “You put all those puzzles together, and you can determine where they are from,” the official said. The team also can sweep the weapons for fingerprints and DNA evidence.

(more…)

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress