Skip to main content

The US-Iran rivalry in the Middle East

West Asia is a region full of twisted realities where the simplest of events can have the most complex underpinnings. Speaking of complexities in the region, Iran is one such country in the region whose sheer size and clout make it a prominent regional power. Iran being a theocracy led by the Shi'ite clergy has religion entwined with its politics. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, from the American lens, Iran has emerged as an untamed beast in the region with its own sense of purpose and an independent worldview to decide its state policy independently. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran does not align itself with the USA. Rather, Iran and USA share a relationship of animosity since the revolution in 1979.

Multiple theories are proposed to explain the bitterness in Iran-US relationship. However, none prove sufficient enough to accomplish the arduous task of explaining the role of Iran in the region and its implications for the stability in West Asia. Put in one sentence, Iran as a state has the potential to become one true leading political actor in the region. Its brand of Shiite Islam is very likely to spread if Iran is to have a free hand in the region which comes as a point of caution to a majority of actors in the region. The case in Iraq comes as a stark reminder when we talk about spreading the influence of Iran’s brand of Islam in the region. In Iraq, the situation becomes especially favorable for Iran because of Iraq being a Shiite majority and Iran’s significant influence on Iraq through proxies and otherwise.

The Shi’i-Sunni sectarian divide in the Muslim world is significant and it gains even greater prominence when a discussion comes to involve Iran. Considering the sectarian divide, the other notable player in the game, Saudi Arabia, as the standard-bearer of Sunni brand of Islam considers itself the one true legitimate leader of the Muslim community. Having inherited the Arab lands and the Arabic language, the Saudi claim for the seat of Global Muslim leadership warrants merit. In addition to that, since the Arabs first revolted against the Ottoman Empire in the First World War to support the cause of the allied forces, they have secured some or other sort of an umbrella of protection from the West. In the past, this role was played by the British who have now been replaced by the Americans. It is worthy to note that the proximity with the west often portrays Saudi Arabia as a client state of the west thus hampering its goal to gain the leadership of the global community of Muslims or the Ummah.

However, the Saudi claim for the leadership of Global Muslim leadership is not unquestioned. The contradictions within the Muslim world become visible more often than not when it comes to the religious bodies like Organization of Islamic cooperation and the Arab League. Often, the conflicting interests among the Muslim nations come to the fore. The concept of Qaumiya (Muslim community) and Wataniya (Nationalism) seem to be acting against each other. However, none of these contrasts are as vehemently opposite to each other as those between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran has the potential to rival the Saudi claim of leading Muslim community worldwide and it has asserted its resolve to do so. Iran’s military adventures resulting into the influence it has in Iraq are no secret to the world. In addition to that, Iran has acquired a special ability in conducting proxy warfare to de-stabilize its adversaries. Yemen is the latest example in this regard. The war in Yemen is being fought on the south-western borders of Saudi Arabia. The acts of violence have often seeped into Saudi Arabia’s territory. In a recent attack by a missile, one of the world’s largest oil-producing facilities in Saudi Arabia was hit. The strike brought down its production capacity to half.

Having underlined the capabilities of Iran in asserting its influence in the region, the role of Israel also demands a mention here. With an overtly Pro-US foreign policy, Israel is often termed the client state of the west in the region. Having an edge in technological capabilities, Israel has displayed its military prowess in the 6-day war by defeating a combined force of major Arab powers. The capabilities of Israel are relevant to the Iran-US rivalry because if Iran gains an upper-hand in terms of power projection by acquiring Nuclear weapons then the relative position of Israel and by that that of US gets compromised.

Coming to the question of Iran’s nuclear program, it was alleged by the USA that Iran was secretly developing WMD. However, a treaty between Iran and the Permanent five members of the UNSC plus Germany was arrived at in 2015. Under which all the nuclear facilities of Iran were to be under constant surveillance from a team consisting of Bipartisan inspectors appointed by IAEA.  The agreement came to be known as the JCPOA or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The agreement allowed Iran to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. However, the Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump made an announcement even before his appointment to the white house about withdrawing the US from the agreement in order to re-negotiate the deals of the agreement.  

Living up to his promise, Trump finalized the US’ exit from the deal unilaterally. Iran, having followed all the committed promises denied re-negotiation of any sorts with the US. A war of words since then ensued between US and Iran. The US went on to say that Iran was not complying with the terms of the agreement and enriching Uranium beyond the permitted limit for peaceful use. Citing the alleged no-compliance, the US administration put American sanctions on Iran that put a stop its export of crude oil. Fearing a backlash from the US, major importers of Crude from Iran looked at other options for their oil-needs.  

Unwilling to give up to the US pressure, Iran started projecting its power in the strategically located strait of Hormuz. For the record, the strait Hormuz is located is choke point and is only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean. World’s 20-30 % of oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. As such, approximately 80% of the oil leaving the Persian Gulf passes through the Hormuz. Having its own export stopped, Iran decided to thwart the exports of Iraq through the strait. Equipped with the wherewithal to direct events in the strait, Iran deployed its naval vessels. One of the British Oil tankers was actually sunk down that carried oil from Iraq. The fear of global oil-supply created chaos as the situation around the area became intense.

All these events led to further increasing animosity between USA and Iran. The situation became so tense that Iran armed forces shot down a Ukraine Passenger plane mistaking it for a US bomber. The whole situation has still not settled completely with new red lines being drawn. US killed the commander of the (IRGC) or Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps Major General Suleimani in Iraq in targeted attack. The killing of the commander came as a major blow to Iran. Following which, Iran vowed to avenge his death.    

If Iran is to acquire a nuclear weapon, it cans single-handedly change the balance of power in the region in its favor. However, from the history of the development of nuclear weapon states we know if one power goes nuclear it triggers a domino effect which makes it mandatory to follow the suit or fall behind in the game of power projection. Iran’s increased influence comes at the cost of US influence in the region. Thus, the bitterness in their relationship is only natural. The US has a tough history in the region. The US military adventurism in Iraq resulted into a worldwide denouncement of US policy that resulted in further erosion of US credibility. Actions of Iran come as a measure of caution. Looking at the recent history of Iraq, Iran takes each of its steps with precaution. The lack of trust and a state of paranoia for mutual actions have become a hallmark of US-Iran rivalry to which there seems to be no end in near future.  


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Non-Violence as a strategy

It cannot be said with certainty whether the idea to put the other cheek up after receiving a slap on one is still celebrated or not. However, it can be safely assumed that if there were a choice between returning the slap to the perpetrator and giving him another chance to repeat the attack, few would choose the latter. Arguably, it was the New Testament that first proposed this idea, which was then followed and propagated to the public at large to varying degrees by leaders around the world. The idea of non-violence has taken many different shapes and forms as it has translated into the real world. It is interesting to investigate how an idea that leaders and thinkers like Gandhi and Tolstoy held so close to their hearts came to be under the purview of strategy.  To many, pacifism is a tool of the weak as it dissociates from the idea of using strength in its conventional form. It is argued; those lacking the traditional means to confront the established authority seek refuge in non

REALISM: THE BALANCE OF POWER

The term ‘Balance of Power’ is attributed to Otto Van Bismarck who while uniting Germany paid special attention to not disturbing the balance of power in erstwhile Europe. The term has since become part of commonly used vocabulary in media and academics alike. Balance of Power (BoP) says that states act to preserve a balance or equilibrium of power in the system. Kenneth Waltz talks about BoP in his book “Theory of International Politics”. BoP itself appears as a part of structural realism in Kenneth Waltz’s book. Waltz argues that the Anarchical world order breeds mistrust in the international structure where increase in the power/resources of one state is seen with caution. According to Kenneth Waltz, the self regarding states act to maximize their power by all possible means. Some states do succeed in aggregating greater power to the envy of other nation-states in the system. As soon as a state acquires power more than other states, a wave of discomfort runs through the system alarm

Role of Communication in conflict and its resolution

To underline the significance of communication, it is said very often that ‘Communication is the first fatality in any conflict’. The idea behind this statement brings about the positive role communication plays in resolving conflicts very efficiently. The statement presents a clear observation which is evident in many if not all the conflicts. Very often, Parties in conflict do stop communicating. The positive force behind communication is considered so pious that absence of communication is often related to the existence of a dormant conflict. Thus, ‘communication is treated as a utilitarian device employed in pursuit of resolution.’ However, what is often glossed over is the part communication plays in introducing a conflict. Communication is indeed an irreplaceable tool when it comes to resolving a conflict but it would be naïve to believe that all communication leads to resolution. As a matter of fact, communication not only resolves conflicts but also acts a divisive force whic