The Third World War: August 1985

9 December. An unsuccessful attempt is made to hijack an aircraft carrying Iranian finance and petroleum ministers from the OPEC meeting home to Tehran. On the same day there is an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate the Shah.

11 December. Forays from Zimbabwe and Namibia are made into the former Union of South Africa. Poland and some Indian states announce that they are withdrawing their forces from the UN troops on the border. Polish, Mexican and Indian commanders on the spot declare that they are under UN orders and will obey these. There are signs that Polish and Indian troops in Africa are more in agreement with right-wing dissidents at home than with their existing governments.

13 December. Round-ups of intellectuals and some workers’ leaders are reported from East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia. These do not appear to be very successful, and reports appear in Western newspapers of communiques from an organized ‘underground’ in these countries and what is by now almost an open dissident movement in Poland.

20 December. Black African forces advancing, in some disorder, from Namibia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique are now known to be commanded by Soviet, Cuban, and Jamaican officers. These clearly do not have their troops under disciplined control.

24 December. The UAR announces that it has discovered an Iranian plan to send forces into the Gulf states. It threatens that if this happens it will take direct military action against Iran, including air attack on Tehran. Iran threatens immediate retaliation and asks for US help.

25 December. In a Christmas message to the world, the ‘lame-duck’ President Carter proposes high-level discussions with the Soviet Union in accordance with the Agreement for the Prevention of Nuclear War of 1973, to consider means to end tensions in Africa and the Middle East. His proposal is that there should be a standstill of military forces all round the globe in their existing positions. There should also be a ban on the export of all arms to either side in Africa or the Middle East. He proposes that the US Navy enforce the blockade of the west coast of Africa; meanwhile the Soviet Navy should enforce the blockade of the east coast of Africa and the Gulf, with assistance to be invited from the US Navy. Both superpowers are to enforce a blockade of arms- carrying ships passing through the Mediterranean.

26 December. The Soviet Union says it will talk only to President Thompson after his Inauguration Day on 20 January. It blames lame-duck President Carter for much of the world’s present ills, but meanwhile agrees that a standstill should be enforced by both the US and the USSR.

28 December. Iran declares that it is not bound by the standstill agreement. Acting contrary to US advice, it reinforces its existing troops in Oman and secures an invitation from the United Arab Emirates to send defensive forces to Abu Dhabi. Television pictures, secured by an American camera team, of Iranian troops landing in Oman, and of armoured cars with Iranian markings alongside Omani troops, are distributed worldwide, and are triumphantly used by the Russians to support their claims of Iranian belligerency. The USSR says this is a blatant breach of the standstill, and that US naval forces (which are supposed to be co-operating in preventing such breaches) have connived at it.

29 December. A Soviet submarine sinks an Iranian transport. A US intelligence ship is attacked by missiles in the Gulf of Aden.

The Soviet attacks on the 29th can with some justification be called the first shots of the Third World War. Symbolically they were fired at sea and in Middle Eastern waters. Both maritime affairs and the Middle East had each been a focus of intense Soviet interest and planning for many years (see Appendix 2).

Having got over the initial shock of the submarine attack, the Iranian government set in train measures to assume complete control of the waters of the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. The luckless US intelligence ship, limping slowly towards Mombasa, following a friendly offer of help from the government of Kenya to the outgoing President in his last days of office, was to be joined by a US carrier group which had been on passage south in the Red Sea, on a routine relief of the standing US Navy Indian Ocean Force. Having cleared the Straits of Bab el Mandeb this carrier group was under orders to carry out an armed reconnaissance of Aden, where it located and identified beyond doubt the group of fast missile boats of Soviet origin which had attacked the US intelligence ship. Also reported was a formidable force of the latest Soviet maritime strike-reconnaissance aircraft. A request to Washington for approval to strike both fast missile boats and maritime aircraft was not approved, and the intelligence ship remained, for the time being, unavenged but still afloat.

It was possible, without too much loss of face, either domestically or externally, for the US Administration to refrain, with due public claim to be acting in the best interests of keeping the peace, from taking immediate offensive action in response to the attack upon the intelligence ship. Instead, the US carrier group made all speed to join the damaged ship and escort it to Mombasa, while strong protests were made to Moscow, coupled with demands for an international court of enquiry, apologies and compensation. Then came news that a Soviet patrol submarine of the Tango class had been brought to the surface in the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian antisubmarine forces and the crew taken prisoner. In short, the first essay by the Soviet Navy in the actual use of force in support of Soviet policy had misfired.

After its initial errors, the Soviet naval command (perhaps smarting under a stern rebuke from the septuagenarian Gorshkov, and acting upon his advice — as Admiral of the Fleet and even after his retirement, Gorshkov had been insisting for years on the necessity of Soviet mastery of the seas for the triumph of Marxism- Leninism) ordered the Victor class nuclear-powered fleet submarine which had been detailed to intercept and trail the damaged US intelligence ship to sink her by torpedo. This she did, despite the presence of the US carrier group, without being detected, let alone destroyed. The confidence of the Politburo in the Soviet Navy’s capacity to act in support of their political objectives was restored. The naval staff ‘Correlation of Forces’ paper (see Appendix 2) was carefully read. It had become apparent that naval-air operations involving actual combat differed drastically from the peaceful penetration of ocean space with propaganda cruising which the Soviet Navy had learned to carry out in such exemplary fashion since it first took to the oceans in the 1960s.

Difficulty was experienced by the new Soviet fleet commander in establishing satisfactory relationships with the various political regimes and armed force commands in the Middle East. Hitherto the Soviet presence had been based upon political agreements drafted by the Soviet Foreign Office and covering in great detail the respective commitments of the contracting parties. Deviation from le pied de la lettre was strongly discouraged. Everything had to be referred to Moscow.

When events began to move fast the weakness of this situation became manifest. Proclamation by the new United Arab Republic of the Red Sea as a war zone, and the closure of the Straits of Bab el Mandeb, for example, found a number of Soviet warships, naval auxiliaries and merchant ships in situations, sometimes at sea and sometimes in harbour, requiring diplomatic intervention with the national authorities. All that Flag Officer Soviet Middle East Forces (FOSMEF) could do was report to Moscow and await guidance. From the naval point of view his authority was similarly circumscribed. Soviet naval and air units in the Middle East ‘belonged’ to one or other of the main fleets — the Northern, the Black Sea, or the Pacific. In suddenly transferring to FOSMEF the ‘operational control’ of a number of surface warships, submarines and aircraft, far away from their main bases, the Soviet naval high command introduced a number of command inter-relationship problems, the resolution of which did not come easily to a commander and staff not bred to the use of initiative in matters of administration.

Even in the operational field FOSMEF found himself somewhat isolated. He had been briefed about the Middle Eastern situation before leaving Moscow, but there had been no time to explain to him precisely what was going on in Southern Africa. He knew, of course, that Soviet advisers, Soviet weapons and equipment, and Soviet bases were contributing to the military strength of the Confederation of Africa South People’s Army (CASPA). But who, precisely, was in command of all these Soviet activities and forces? What was the directive upon which Soviet actions were to be based? In desperation the Flag Officer decided to send a senior staff officer to find out what was going on. The officer, travelling in plain clothes and using civil airlines, arrived eventually in Beira, where he contacted a member of the Soviet military mission. But, alas, events had moved too fast. The Soviet Navy, having started off on the wrong foot, and then made a good recovery, had nevertheless failed to retain the control of events which effective implementation of Moscow’s subtle and complex political operations called for.

As evidence built up, and could no longer be disregarded, that a state of hostilities might at any moment exist between the United States of America and the Soviet Union, contingency plans on both sides were brought out and dusted off. The difficulty for the Americans was that in addition to losing an intelligence ship they had lost the initiative. The Russians, on the other hand, though clumsy in execution, knew exactly what they were trying to do. Moreover, at this juncture, although they were deeply involved both politically and militarily in the Middle East and