Monday, December 21, 2020

The Persian Gulf Crisis and the Security Dilemma

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Anant Jani

Article Title

The Persian Gulf Crisis and the Security Dilemma

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

December 21, 2020

URL

American Assault Ship in the Persian Gulf

American Assault Ship in the Persian Gulf | Source: Cpl. David Gonzalez via Flickr

This article explains the recent tensions between Iran and the United States, and presents it as a case of the ‘Security Dilemma’ theory in practice.

The Persian Gulf Crisis 2019-20

To understand the current crisis in Persian Gulf, we must look at the Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015, also called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The JCPOA was signed between The E3/EU+3 (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, and the United States, China, with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the Islamic Republic of Iran, to permit nuclear capabilities for Iran exclusively for peaceful purposes, in exchange for the lifting of crippling sanctions.

JCPOA terms:

International Atomic Energy Agency representative in Tehran, Iran for talks on JCPOA implementation | Source: Tasnim News Agency

Under this accord, Iran had to reduce its Uranium stockpile by 98% to 300kg, maintain its level of enrichment at 3.67%, reduce the number of centrifuges, and only keep one of its Uranium enrichment plants active. It also had to redesign its reactor at Arak, so it could not produce weapon’s grade Plutonium. Until 2031, Iran is not permitted to make heavy-water reactors.

Further, it was to permit itself to regular inspection of their nuclear site by the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In return, Iran gained over $100bn of frozen assets overseas, and was permitted to allow trading in oil in international markets and use the global financial system for trade.

Trump Administration’s Revoking of the JCPOA

In 2018, the Trump administration reimposed some of the sanctions in Iran, despite Trump's election promise to reduce involvement in the Middle East. Countering the re-impositions, Iran threatens to resume Uranium enrichment. In May 2019, Iran suspends nuclear deal commitments, and gives other signatories a 60-day deadline to protect it from US sanctions, before resuming Uranium enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran had already increased Uranium production, but is unclear by how much.

President Trump signing executive orders, imposing sanctions on Iran | Source: Shealah Craighead via White House

In May 2019, the US increased military deployment in the Persian Gulf, reportedly to prevent what the termed was a “campaign” between Iran and its proxies to threaten US oil shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Tanker Crisis

In June 2019, two tankers were set ablaze in the Gulf of Oman, using mines. The US blamed Iran for these blasts, but Iran denied the charges.

In the same month, Iran Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down a US surveillance drone, escalating tensions and causing the US to name the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

In July 2019, the British Royal Marine Commandos seized an Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibraltar, as it was suspected to be en route to Syria, in violation of EU sanctions. The US declared that anyone assisting the ship would be considered an accomplice of terrorist groups, namely the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

In retaliation, Iran seized British-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Iranian tanker was released six weeks later, on the condition that they do not unload their cargo of 2.1million barrels of oil in Syria.

December Air Strikes

In December 2019, the K-1 Air Base in Iraq was attacked by an unconfirmed party, killing one American contractor. This base hosts Americans (amongst other nationalities) who are responsible for training Iraqi troops in counter-terrorism. The Americans alleged that the attack was carried out by Kataib Hezbollah, which denies it. Kataib Hezbollah is a rebel group (recognized as a terrorist group by the US) backed by Iran. The Iraqi’s alleged that ISIL was responsible.

In retaliation for the killing of the American Contractor, the US launched air strikes on the weapons depot and command centres of Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria in the same month, reportedly killing 25 militiamen.

Assassination of Iranian Major General

Late Iranian General, Qasem Suleimani | Source: Tasnim News Agency

Iraq and Iran condemned the attack, and on 31 December, 2019, Iraqi militia attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad. In response, the US conducted airstrikes at the Baghdad International Airport in January 2020, killing the Commander of Iranian Quds Force, General Qasem Suleimani, the second most powerful man in Iran.

These escalations, placed within the context of US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, provide a good example of the Security Dilemma theory and how it plays out in practice.

What is the Security Dilemma?

Before delving into the theoretical definitions it is worth reminding ourselves that States do not behave as they do because a theoretical model demands them to. Rather, most theoretical models are based on observations of real-world behaviour of states, and seek to explain said behaviour. The Classical Realist theory, of which the Security Dilemma is a part, is amongst one of these, and I endeavour to highlight some of the key points of this theory.

The Classical Realist theory holds that States (or State-actors) are the basic unit of any international system. They are the most important actors, as there is no authority higher than them. The international system is fundamentally anarchic, with every actor left to their own devices with no supranational oversight. Each State finds it in their own self-interest to provide their own means for security. Security comes with the ability of the State to exercise its power, and thus Power Hegemony and Security are inextricably linked. In other words, since no State can rely on a supranational authority to provide security (an every-man-for-himself scenario), it is in each State’s best interest to understand the power distribution across all state-actors and maximize power for themselves, as the ultimate security. This results in a zero-sum game, with one actor’s loss being another’s gain. In providing absolute security for one’s own State, one leaves others insecure. The resulting power imbalance manifests in conflict, and for the Realist it follows, therefore, that Conflict is the natural state of affairs.

This, in essence, is the Security Dilemma: Striving for absolute security leaves others absolutely insecure, thus providing powerful incentives for an arms race, leading to further conflicts. It is little wonder that this is also called the Spiral Model, for in the very process of striving for security, one gives birth to escalating conflict.

How does this relate to the Persian Gulf Crisis?

The US has long followed the Realist model, believing that in a state of fundamental anarchy, it is justifiable to have nuclear capabilities and have intense militarization, as a means of gaining absolute security (justified by ‘offense is the best defence’). However, the US is also known for disallowing Weapons of Mass Destruction and nuclear capabilities in other countries, despite having such resources by itself. Here we see the Security Dilemma: to maintain absolute security, the US cannot allow others to be similarly armed. This is seen clearly in the signing of the JCPOA.

Consider the case from Iran’s point of view. As a result of the US war against Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrow of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, there has been constant American presence in both the countries bordering Iran since almost two decades. That this poses a threat to Iran is obvious: the US caused fundamental regime changes in Iraq after the war; with its manpower and firepower, alongside its strategic placement on both sides of the Iranian border, the US is at a vantage point to attack Iran – placements that are, paradoxically, intended to guarantee American security.

The American show of strength and the impending danger of conflict leave Iran with two choices: Forge alliances with US adversaries, such as China or Russia, to deter Iran-US conflict, or be nuclear-armed. Iran managed both, causing, in effect, a nuclear arms race that culminated in the JCPOA.  In retrospect, the JCPOA seems like the perfect solution to the Security Dilemma in US-Iran conflicts: not only does it allow Iran to benefit from its suspensions of nuclear capabilities, it also ceases the arms race and de-escalates the conflict. In short, it is the Diplomat’s way out of the Security Dilemma, guaranteeing security without arms.

The Trump administration’s call to reimpose sanctions on Iran only serves to re-ignite security concerns for both countries. With Iran having ousted its JCPOA commitments as of January 2020, we can only hope that de-escalations will soon follow to prevent the otherwise inevitable spiralling into arms race and false absolute security.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:43 PM

The US-Taliban Deal: A ray of hope for the battered Afghans

On 11 September 2001, the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon in America killed over 3000 people for which Osama Bin Laden, the head of Al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility.. Osama Bin Laden was based in Afghanistan during this attack and was protected by the government of the day which was run by the radical Islamist group Taliban. Even after the repeated demands from the USA government, Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden to the USA. 

George W. Bush, the president of America at that point of time, announced the first airstrikes against Afghanistan on 7 October 2001. As other countries joined in, the Taliban were quickly removed from power and a new pro-western government was installed. The new government, however, was never able to run its writ over the whole country. The Taliban regrouped and started gaining influence in the vast rural areas and continuously attacked the US-led international military coalition as well as Afghan forces. From that point onward, the U.S. and its allies have battled to stop Afghanistan's administration crumbling and to end attacks by the Taliban. 

After more than eighteen years of war in Afghanistan, on 29 February 2020, the United States and Taliban signed a peace deal which was the first step in ending the war. The agreement was signed in the Qatari capital Doha between Talibani political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. The U.S. Defence Secretary Mark Esper said that signing of the accord would be a good step to end the war, the road ahead would not be secure. There would be a full withdrawal of all U.S. and coalition forces from Afghanistan within 14 months since the signing of the deal. The Taliban promised to cut ties with Al Qaeda and keep fighting the militant Islamic State group.  

What is in the peace agreement?

The peace agreement was signed after nine rounds of discussion and it contains four main points: cease-fire, withdrawal of foreign forces, intra-Afghan negotiations, and counter-terrorism assurances. 

  1. Cease-fire: The negotiators agreed to a temporary reduction in violence. They said that a permanent and comprehensive cease-fire will be an item on the agenda of the intra-Afghan dialogue and negotiations. 
  2. Withdrawal of foreign forces: Within the first 135 days, the U.S. will reduce its troops in Afghanistan from roughly 12,000 to 8,600, along with the allies of the U.S. also withdrawing their forces proportionately. If the Taliban follows through all the commitments that in the peace deal, all the U.S. troops along with the allies' troops will leave Afghanistan within fourteen months. 
  3. Counter-terrorism assurances: The United States invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, mainly to eliminate the threat of terrorism and halt terrorist activities in the country. As a part of the agreement, the Taliban guaranteed that Afghanistan would not be used by any of its members or terrorist groups to threaten the security of the U.S. and its allies. 
  4. Intra-Afghan negotiations: The reason behind the intra-Afghan talks is to bring together negotiators from the Taliban and Afghan government. The peace deal also calls for an exchange of prisoners before the intra-Afghan negotiations. The intra-Afghan talks which were supposed to take place in March 2020, have been delayed. 

Challenges to the peace deal

While this deal can be seen as a stepping stone towards a more comprehensive agreement, many difficulties may come in the way. 

The United States and the Taliban had consented to the arrival of up to 5000 Taliban prisoners in return for up to one thousand Afghan security forces. However, the Afghan government said that it had not agreed on such an exchange. The process can become difficult due to a weak central government along with ethnic, tribal and sectarian differences. At the same time, many people say that the Taliban has gotten more than it gave up. 

Through the deal, the Taliban got their primary wish: removal of American troops from Afghanistan. Yet, they had failed to be specific about the civil rights that they had repressed when they were in power. The insurgents pledged to keep international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as their base for attacks. 

The United States promised to work towards the gradual removal of Taliban leaders from the sanction blacklists of America and the United Nations. At the same time, the experts say that the Taliban is stronger than ever at this point. It controls many districts throughout the country and continues to launch significant attacks including in Kabul and on Afghan security forces. 

The peace process is also faced by the problem of the illegal drug trade. According to Afghan officials, more than 20 terrorist groups still operate inside the country, which is another threat to the deal. By signing the agreement, the U.S. and the Taliban state their commitment to reduce violence and not attack each other. What remains a worry is how much and how long the Taliban will hold fire on Afghan security forces before the cease-fire is finally reached in Afghan negotiations.

Sources that were used:

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/world/asia/us-taliban-deal.html
  2. http://diplomatist.com/2020/05/16/us-taliban-peace-deal-and-its-implications-for-central-asia/
  3. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2020/02/war-afghanistan-2001-invasion-2020-taliban-deal-200229142658305.html
  4. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51689443
  5. https://www.dawn.com/news/1529415
  6. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-taliban-peace-deal-agreement-afghanistan-war
  7. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/afghanistan-taliban-sign-deal-america-longest-war-200213063412531.html
  8. https://www.dawn.com/news/1537384
  9. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/u-s-taliban-peace-deal/7aab0f58-dd5c-430d-9557-1b6672d889c3/?itid=lk_inline_manual_3
Read More