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 5:14 PM

NEET/JEE Examinations during the Pandemic in India: Whose interest will it really serve?

India currently is the third worst-hit country globally in terms of the total number of COVID-19 cases which is still on the increasing trend. The country had imposed one of the toughest lockdowns across the world to counter the threat of Corona in the initial phase itself. Apart from the economic activities, the lockdown has impacted the education sector in a big way.

All the education institutions from pre-nursery schools to the professional colleges and universities were closed down in the month of March 2020 itself. These institutions are still closed for the physical presence of students and the classes are happening only through online modes which doesn't require students to venture out from their homes.

The schools and colleges cancelled the pending examinations of last academic year and gave general promotion to the students for the next class. Many examinations for admissions to various college programs in the country were also done away while some are still on.

Two of the biggest national level entrance exams, the NEET and the JEE, which have been postponed multiple times in the light of the increasing number of COVID-19 cases are now in the spotlight. This is due to the fact that the Ministry of Education recently stated that both the JEE and the NEET will be held in the upcoming month of September. The NTA has issued public notices citing that the JEE (Main) April 2020 is scheduled from September 1-6, while NEET-UG 2020 exam is scheduled for September 13.

The Supreme Court had responded to a plea filed on 17th August seeking postponement of the exams, while dismissing it, that the precious year of students “cannot be wasted”. The plea that had been filed through advocate Alakh Alok Shrivastava via 11 students from different states sought the quashing of the notices issued on July 3rd by the National Testing Agency (NTA), which set the dates for JEE and NEET in September next month.

The Medical Council of India (MCI) in response to the plea has submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court stating that further postponement of the NEET would be a “drastic deviation” from the academic schedule which “may affect the subsequent academic years” of the students. It also ruled out the possibility of conducting NEET online owing to the “paper book format” of the exam. It further stated that conducting the exam at the same time everywhere is imperative and hence it cannot be organized in countries like Qatar and UAE which attract significant applicants.

With the centre looking adamant to organize the exams, student organizations like the National Students Union of India (NSUI), the student wing of the Indian National Congress, and the All India Student’ Association, student wing of the CPI(ML) have come together to protest against the decision. Both the outfits demanded cancellation of all first and second-year exams and giving promotion to the students, holding final year exams in a way such that students across the country can write them, and most importantly postponement of both the NEET and the JEE.

Dr. Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank, Minister of Human Resource Development, India | Source: IndiaTVNews

An argument in favour of conducting the exams as given by Education Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank was that the majority of the aspirants had already downloaded their admit cards for the exams. However, it is quite easy to see that students do not have a choice. One can argue that if we put ourselves in the applicant’s shoes, even we would do the same and download the admit cards. This by no means is an indication that students are willing to appear in the exams.

My personal experience in appearing for the JEE and AMU-EEE back in 2017 and 2018 is more than enough for convincing me in favour of postponing the exams. For JEE alone nearly 15 lakh students appear annually. The examination centres are usually overcrowded both before the beginning and after the culmination of the exam and it is nearly impossible to maintain social distancing. Also, the students are normally accompanied by parents or guardians which further adds up to the crowd. Further due to the large number of applicants it will be impossible to maintain distance in the examination halls unless and until the number of examination centres is increased tremendously. Due to various financial and logistical reasons, this will be an uphill task to accomplish.

Students across the country have reacted strongly to the decision of the Court on social media. Most of them are worried about contacting COVID which will put their own as well as the family members’ at risk. Manish Chaubey, one of the 11 petitioners in SC, said, “My hometown is in Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh and I am in Mumbai at present. It will be a hassle and immensely risky to travel now. Why should I have to put my parents through this?". While some pointed out the irony of the SC using a virtual mode to conduct hearings for making students appear in the exams, others chose to blame the BJP for being inhuman in forcing students into crowded examination centres.

In an open letter to the HRD ministry and education minister Dr Harshvardhan, MadhuPurnima Kishwar, founder of human rights organization, MANUSHI, sought to address the countless appeals regarding various issues and concerns of applicants nationwide received by her. Most of the appeals revolved around safety concerns and fear of contracting the coronavirus disease and thus jeopardizing the safety of family members.

In the letter, she pointed out how the recently organized KCET and B.Ed exam in UP were a clear indication of how it would be nearly impossible to implement the distancing and safety guidelines in the overcrowded examination centres. The overwhelming shortage of examination centres in the light of distancing norms was also mentioned in the letter. She also stated how many IIT and AIIMS directors were of the opinion that the exams could be conducted in November without significant academic loss.

Another very important fact mentioned in the letter was regarding the applicants from countries like the UAE and Qatar. Due to the mandatory 14-day quarantine period for anyone arriving in the country from overseas, it will be very tricky for these applicants and their parents to travel under the current scenario. Parents of nearly 4000 applicants in these countries abroad had filed a plea for either postponing the exams or conducting them abroad. However, the NTA, after consulting with the MCI, ruled that conducting the exams overseas is not a viable option which means that all these candidates will be left stranded. Even if they manage to fly to India for appearing in the exams, they will then be subject to various guidelines issued by their parent countries abroad.

Multiple politicians also voiced similar concerns regarding the decision. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi urged the government to consider the concerns of the students appearing for the entrance examinations. Manish Sisodia, Aam Aadmi Party leader and the deputy CM of Delhi also echoed similar thoughts. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on Sunday came up with 13 points concerning logistical issues as well as safety concerns in the argument for the need of postponing the exams.

Another very strong argument in favour of postponing the exams was the lack of public transport services due to lockdown in many districts and states of the country. While those who had arrangements for private vehicles would not face any issue, the others would be left stranded in the absence of the various means of public transports. Lastly, many states are still under various degrees of lockdown as the overall situation of the country is still not very great in terms of daily coronavirus cases. This would also make movement for those applicants with examination centres away from their native places very difficult.

The debate surrounding the NEET and JEE exams has become quite a heated issue around the country. With so many applicants and their parents asking for the postponement of the exams due to various safety concerns, it remains to be seen if the government would still go ahead in organizing these exams as planned.

Read More