A coalition of the few: U.S. and Saudi Arabia stand alone against Iran

The United States and Saudi Arabia lack virtually any allies as they consider how to respond to this weekend's attacks on Saudi oil refineries, raising doubts about whether the Trump administration could build any coalition for military action in the region.

The attacks have crippled Saudi oil production, creating one of the largest oil disruptions in decades. But while Defense Secretary Mark Esper tweeted that the U.S. is working with "our partners to address this unprecedented attack,” President Donald Trump has alienated key allies by unilaterally pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and re-imposing sanctions. It has already been unable to enlist allies to protect shipping in the region from Iranian attacks.

“In a normal administration, we should be able to get 40 or 50 countries on board for something like this but we can’t because nobody trusts the Trump administration and everybody thinks they’re going to take them into war," said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Obama administration national security official who worked on Iran policy at the Pentagon, referring to the maritime security initiative — which he called "pathetic.”

“There is no offensive coalition against Iran, not there or anywhere else in the world right now,” added Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who studies Iranian military activity in the Middle East.

Even leading Republicans in Congress called on Trump to take action only with the help of allies. "The best way to counter Iran is by working by, with and through regional partners — including making sure they have what they need to defend themselves and our shared interests," Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma said in a statement late Monday.

The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said earlier that “I hope our international partners will join us in imposing consequences on Iran for this reckless destabilizing attack.”

Successive U.S. administrations have used coalitions to bolster the legitimacy of military actions and to relieve some of the pressure on heavily used U.S. military forces — from the 1991 Gulf War and the Clinton administration’s actions in the Balkans to the much-maligned “coalition of the willing” that the George W. Bush administration recruited for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

And since taking office, Trump has often expressed frustration with allies over burden-sharing, pushing European, Asian, and Middle Eastern partners to bear greater financial and practical costs in areas where the U.S. underwrites their security.

That was the Pentagon’s rationale when it announced the so-called International Maritime Security Construct in July following the Iranian seizure of a British tanker and the June shoot down of a U.S. surveillance drone. By recruiting international partners for a flotilla of naval vessels and surveillance aircraft, the Pentagon hoped to limit the amount of U.S. military might it would have to commit to providing security in waterways where Iranian naval forces have harassed commercial shipping.

That’s seen as a key concern at a time when the military is trying to shift troops, aircraft, warships and other equipment away from the Middle East to better prepare for potential conflicts with Russia or China.

Yet many allied nations — including bedrock military partners like France and Germany — steered clear out of concern that the Trump administration might use the mission to drag them into a confrontation with Iran.

France and Germany have both condemned the weekend attacks on the Saudi oil industry. But France appears committed to diplomacy with Iran. French President Emmanuel Macron last month called for Trump and President of Iran Hassan Rouhani to meet to try to arrange a summit.

And a German government official last month warned of being “sucked into” a larger military mission if it joined the maritime security mission.

So far, only the U.K., Australia, and Bahrain have joined the U.S. in the maritime coalition.

The maritime security force is based in Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet. It draws on unspecified forces from the Bahraini military — whose navy mostly consists of small patrol craft — as well as a British contingent of two frigates, a destroyer and five mine hunting vessels, according to a British official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Australia, meanwhile, has pledged to deploy a surveillance plane later this year and a warship next year, and Australian Defense Minister Linda Reynolds stressed when she announced that commitment that “Australia’s core interest in this mission is de-escalation.”

In leading the effort, the U.S. has committed destroyers and “intelligence gathering assets,” according to a statement from U.S. Central Command. Telling reporters last month that the mission was “up and running,” Esper described its mission as “first, to provide freedom of navigation for the commercial shipping that is so vital to global economic trade, and second, to deter provocations and avoid conflict in the region."

The skeletal maritime force is far too small to be used in any type of military response to the Saudi Aramco attacks — a mission that would go beyond its intended purpose.

“The idea that this coalition could be used to respond significantly or seriously to Iran is fanciful,” said Goldenberg, who is now with the Center for a New American Security.

For quick aerial or sea-launched retaliatory strikes against Iranian missile and drone facilities, a coalition could be more of an impediment than as asset, according to Eric Edelman, a former George W. Bush Pentagon official. "If the president decides on a military response, I think you want it to be fairly prompt and you don’t want to spend a lot of time coordinating with others beyond Saudi Arabia," Edelman said.

But building a stronger international consensus before taking military action could foil Iran's efforts to diplomatically isolate the U.S., advised Jack Keane, a retired Army general who is close to the Trump administration.

"What the U.S. has the opening to do now, once it's gathered all the evidence, is present it to an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council," Keane said, calling that "a vehicle to garner more support to counter future aggressive Iranian behavior."

If the Trump administration does seek to build a separate, broader coalition specifically for retaliatory action against Iran over the Saudi Aramco strikes, it’s likely to come up empty — or nearly empty — for the same reasons the maritime coalition has struggled to gain traction.

“International allies don’t know what Trump’s going to do,” said Kelly Magsamen, a former Obama administration Pentagon official at the Center for American Progress. "They look at him and think one minute he’s trying to get us into some sort of maritime coalition, and the next he’s tweeting that he wants to meet [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani.”

“They’re not going to sign up for politically or militarily challenging endeavors without a better understanding of what U.S. strategy is” on Iran, she added.

Spooking traditional allies like Germany and France has left the administration “with very few cards to play at this point,” said Magsamen.

The administration’s habit of making major foreign policy pronouncements over Twitter or in other impromptu formats has also hurt allies’ willingness to work jointly with the U.S. on matters as weighty as potential military action, Goldenberg said.

“Then they do things like release the intel on Twitter before talking to any allies about it,” he said. “That’s not what you do. You take it to your friends and convince them, and then you go out together and make the case.”