The United States’ Containment Policy toward Iran
Abstract
The US containment policy toward Iran after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 was actually a form of controlling policy, paralleled with a form of selective interaction. The US adopted the aforementioned policy to restrain Iran’s influence, narrowing down Iran’s strategic weight in regional and international arenas and ultimately changing Iran’s political behavior and regime. What are the US containment policy’s components toward Iran? What are the regional impacts of these components on Iran? This paper claims that the US strategies to restrain Iran can be categorized into four components (1.Securitization of Iran, 2.Utilizing punitive diplomatic measures against Iran, 3.Imposing all-out sanctions against Iran, and 4.Offshore balancing). Iran’s nuclear program was used by the US as the best pretext to introduce Tehran as a security concern. Isolating Iran through traditional diplomacy, narrowing down Iran’s strategic weight by resorting to public diplomacy and implementing certain measures within the framework of track II diplomacy, were some alternatives utilized as punitive diplomatic measures by the US against Iran. The US efforts to pave the way for international consensus, the United Nations, the European Union and Washington itself, to ratify and impose more severe sanctions against Iran, was the other component of the US containment policy. As the last component, the US resorted to offshore balancing by reinforcing Iran’s rivals and debilitating Tehran’s allies. It seems that the US is resolved to continue such policies including overstating Iran’s nuclear program as a security threat, imposing new sanctions on Iran under the pretexts of violating human rights and expansion of missile power program and also deteriorating tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia to complete its containment policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Keywords: Containment Policy toward Iran, Iran, Security Strategies, US Foreign Policy.
1. Introduction
Since the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, The US has ever since the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution emphasized containment policy along with selective policy toward Tehran. The US containment policy toward Iran has not been restricted to the country’s nuclear program but has also covered a variety of subjects.
Although the US utilized selective interaction policy, in certain specific situations including negotiations between Iran and the US in Ronald Reagan era over the releasing American hostages in Lebanon and also interaction between Tehran and Washington over Iraq and Afghanistan, the main policy of the US toward Iran has always been the containment one.
The US containment policy has had its own goals, tools, strategies, tactics, and unique assumptions that have been totally tangible within a framework of measures, including imposing sanctions, politically isolating Iran, forming a coalition against Iran, strengthening the defense and military power of Iran’s regional rivals, weakening Iran’s allies and diplomatic pressure, and using public diplomacy against Iran.
The US containment policy, more than anything else, has changed the balance of power between the Islamic Republic of Iran and its regional rivals, in summary, it has ended in the enhancement of Iran’s regional rivals.
It should be mentioned that Iran has mostly confronted the US containment policy, and has reacted against it.
The containment policy along with selective interaction was utilized as the main option in the last years of George W. Bush presidency by Robert Gates and Condoleezza Rice (the US former secretary of defense and secretary of the state respectively) toward Iran. The above-mentioned policy was pursued by the Barack Obama administration in spite of his promises in the presidential election campaign.
The US governments have been pursuing a containment policy toward Iran following the victory of the Islamic Revolution and further termination of diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington in 1980. The US officials have believed that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s policy has been based on revising its international relations which opposes the US intention to impose a hierarchy order in the international community; therefore, the US officials have always had to confront Iran.
For instance, containment policy toward Iran as a basis for the US measures against Iran in Ronald Reagan presidency. Following the failure of Robert McFarlane’s plan for rapprochement with Iran, the US intensified economic, diplomatic and military pressures on Iran simultaneously.
In the meantime, Reagan’s administration ratified a series of sanctions, including ban on importing any Iranian goods to the US, ban on offering any dual-use technologies to Iran, internationalizing sanctions on selling any advanced technologies to Iran and contracting technical and economic relations with Iran in the Group of Seven (G7) Forum which are still in place.
Meanwhile, the US dispatched a considerable number of its military forces to the Persian Gulf region which resulted in the destruction of a part of the Iranian navy’s facilities in the war between Iran and the US-backed Iraq. In line with the implementation of containment policy toward Iran, the US urged the largest arms exporters not to sell their products to Iran and even banned any non-military exports to Iran, but also the White House policymakers did their best to provide Iraq with the entire commercial facilities.
In Bill Clinton's presidency, Martin Indyk, the main member of the US National Security Council, specified for the first time in 1993 the US new policy in the Persian Gulf as dual containment aimed at restraining both Iran and Iraq. The mentioned policy was supposed to use the vulnerable standing of Iran and Iraq after their 8-year-long war to impose basic changes in both nations’ political manner. From the US point of view, the European powers, Japan, Russia and China should be convinced by the White House in order not to accept Iran’s demands for purchasing conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction.
The US dual containment policy was not able to find enough support until 1995, but in 1995, the American-owned Congo Oil Company inked an agreement with the National Iranian Oil Company which resulted in severe reactions in the United States. Alfonse Marcello D’Amato, a US Republican senator, provided a bill for imposing comprehensive financial and commercial sanctions on Iran which further was ratified by the US Congress.
Bill Clinton signed the above-mentioned bill in 1996. Based on this law, the non-American companies that managed to invest more than $40 million in Iran’s oil industries could face the US severe sanctions. Meantime, under this law, the entire American oil companies were banned from purchasing Iran’s oil. Ahead of signing D’Amato law, Bill Clinton in two separate executive decrees on March 15, 1995, and on May 06, 1995, imposed new sanctions against Iran. In the first decree, Clinton declared a state of national extraordinary against Iran due to Iran’s backup for terrorism, Tehran’s efforts to weaken the peace process in the Middle East and Iran’s activities to access weapons of mass destruction. Based on the state of national extra-ordinary, the US government had to prevent the American identities from providing Iran with supervision, financial and management assistance for the country’s oil resources.
In the second decree, the US banned any form of exports of goods, services and technologies to Iran, any form of trade with Tehran including intermediation by the American middlemen regarding goods and services of Iranian origin or even those under Iran’s supervision or ownership, investment by the Americans in Iran or providing Iranian companies with financial packages or loans.
Since Bill Clinton’s presidency, the US prevented construction and passage of the Caspian Sea’s oil and gas pipelines from Iran’s soil.
Following electing Mohammad Khatami as Iran’s president in May 1997 (with 69% of votes in favor), the logic of the US containment policy toward Iran which considered Tehran as a security threat was somehow narrowed down but did not change. Even in George Bush (the son) presidency, the mentioned policy was pursued more severely. Bush named Iran, North Korea, and Iraq as the axis of evil and threats to international peace. In various addresses, Bush named Iran among the nations that tried to access weapons of mass destruction, therefore, he continued imposing sanctions and all-out pressures on Iran.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a review of the US containment policy toward Iran. Finally, Section 3 concludes the paper.
2. A Review of the US Containment Policy toward Iran
The US, in the past three decades, has put containment policy toward Iran atop its agenda to restrain Iran’s influence and also to change Tehran’s political behaviors and regime. The US policy has mainly aimed at changing Iran’s approach to the peace process in the Middle East, terrorism, human rights, and its nuclear program. Therefore, different governments in the US have tried hard to put Iran under pressure at internal, regional and international levels.
At the international level, the US has claimed Iran’s nuclear program as a threat and provided a vast consensus worldwide in this regard. At the regional level, the US has accused Iran of providing support for terrorist groups. It has claimed that Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups have been alive and active under Iran’s full supports; therefore, the White House has tried to impose regional restrictions on Tehran. At the internal level, the US has paid a lot of attention to the human rights issue and has introduced Iran as one of the main violators of human rights worldwide. Of course, it should be mentioned that the three mentioned levels have been overlapping each other, so, they cannot be simply separable.
It is worthy to remind that decreasing Iran’s strategic weight in regional and international arenas has been the most important objective of the US containment policy. Once, Henry Kissinger, the former United States Secretary of State, expressed his concern over the revival of Iran’s empire and termed Iran as the main threat to the world and not terrorists of Daesh (ISIL or ISIS). Therefore, a materialization of the US policy, on one hand, should guarantee to decrease Iran’s partial power in both soft and hard dimensions, and on the other hand, should reinvigorate the power of Iran’s rivals.
The US has resorted to the following strategies to achieve the above-mentioned objectives (1.Securitization of Iran, 2.Utilizing punitive diplomatic measures against Iran, 3.Imposing all-out sanctions against Iran, and 4.Offshore balancing).
2.1 Securitization of Iran
The international community’s perception of Iran before the conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known commonly as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, as a result of a successful process of securitization of Iran. In other words, Western states, especially the US, succeeded to shape public understanding of Iran’s nuclear program as a threatening issue and introduced the country’s nuclear program as an existential threat against international peace and security. Based on that, they persuaded governments, organizations, and institutions to carry out extraordinary measures to deal with Iran.
The US and its allies did the process of securitization of Iran professionally so that even after the conclusion of the JCPOA, the audience of the above-mentioned process inquired them whether Iran’s nuclear program is a real international threat. It seems that the rigid and dominant understanding of the audience makes them believe that Iran at first tries to make an atomic bomb, and then thinks about other peaceful uses. Different reasons, including Iran’s role, are important in the process of securitization of Tehran.
Two traditional and non-traditional approaches should be defined while reviewing the issue of security. A traditional approach to security is based on objectivism which its main principle is about the real threat not an understanding of the threat. In fact, security is summarized into an objective threat, mainly in a military manner, which is the capability of jeopardizing a government’s existence. This approach is mainly state-centrism and prioritizes military security concentrating on war, but in a non-traditional approach or a broader approach, if the main aim is to define security issues, not only the real threat but an understanding of it also matters, (combining objective and mental reasons). In other words, the latter is not only opposing the traditional approach but can encompass it. In a non-traditional approach, non-military subjects, including environmental pollution, diseases, economic recession, and social crises can be considered as security threats, in which not only the government’s existence but other values, such as culture and identity also matter.
Generally, from a non-traditional point of view towards the issue of security and threat, all objective and subjective reasons could play a role in defining and explaining security threats.
As David Campbell suggests, danger and threat are not a mere objective situation with an independent existence from the audiences who try to understand them. In fact, explaining a danger is not necessarily restricted to a unique reality but it closely is engaged in subjective affairs. The way to understand a threat should be stated within the framework of security talks.
Stephen Van Evera asserts that the main threat to the nowadays superpowers is the superpowers themselves. In fact, the danger which threatens them is their own intention to overstate dangers they deal with, and in the meantime, their destructive and hostile response to the overstated dangers.
Various forms of security threats can come out from real and objective dangers, whether the danger is an outcome of perception or basically comes from a misunderstanding, in a real sense it is mostly a combination of both.
Robert Jervis emphasizes significantly the role of misunderstanding in the decision-making process. From his point of view, normal misunderstandings in the international policy rely mostly on overestimating the opposite side and considering it more concentrated, well organized and also satanic, which altogether will justify us to give a more influential and important role to the opposite side than the real role it can shoulder. Such an approach, as Jervis suggests, will make us believe that whatever the opposite side does, is a part of a macro-security plan. Therefore, security threats, in addition to objective dangers, can be turned into overstated threats or misunderstood threats.
2.2 Applying Diplomatic Measures against Iran by the US
Change in political and social conditions and the emergence of new and influential components in international arenas have caused nations to define and apply new policies and tools for maintaining their national interests. In fact, communicational revolution and expansion of media, on one hand, and activation of non-state players, including non-state organizations and civil society institutions, on the other hand, have resulted in introducing public opinion as one of the most important principles for decision-making in different forms across the countries in the world.
In the contemporary world of today, diplomacy has been home to various forms of changes, based on which, the two players of state and people, apply three forms of diplomacies, including traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy and Track II Diplomacy.
A) The traditional diplomacy (state-state) has been restricted to open and hidden diplomacies. Actually, diplomacy itself can be defined as a skill to manage foreign policy, regulating international relations and reconciling international conflicts through peaceful windows.
B) In public diplomacy (state-people), foreign ministers and diplomats play an important role in materializing objectives of public diplomacy, but this form of diplomacy is not a mere dialogue between diplomats and people of other countries. Therefore, it is a systematic application of public opinion’s potential and its influence on decision-makers. In public diplomacy, state-run and private sectors act simultaneously and jointly. So, a policy-maker tries to interact with a public audience and public opinion in order to be capable of handling his/her own message to influence decision-makers.
C) The Track II Diplomacy (people-people) which means interaction between new players in international arenas, of course along with a state, is the most unrecognized, and in the meantime, the most progressive diplomacy in the world. The Track II Diplomacy refers to a form of diplomacy, whose players are non-state actors, covering subjects, spheres, and fields, which had been previously managed by the state. Following expansion and reinvigoration of non-state actors in different communities, a different form of awareness and intention has been organized that has more suitable capacities and capabilities to manage certain fields of international relations.
Based on the above-mentioned explanations, the US diplomacy toward Iran is as follows:
1) The US Traditional Diplomacy toward Iran: The US, within the framework of its own traditional diplomacy, managed to materialize one of its most important objectives in isolating Tehran. Ratification of anti-Iran resolutions in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and anti-Iran widespread media activities to introduce Tehran as a threat to international peace paved the way for a large number of nations to minimize their relations with Iran, and pushed Iran into a deep diplomatic isolation, of course, before conclusion of Iran nuclear deal.
Calling off the official visits of world leaders, severe restrictions for Iranian diplomats in foreign countries, sabotaging Iran’s media activities in foreign countries and many other samples of this kind took place while the US tried hard to introduce Iran as an unaccountable and unpredictable country due to Tehran’s nuclear program standoff and Syria’s crisis to create consensus against Iran. It should be mentioned that some of the US objectives including minimizing Iran’s influential presence in international scenes, were in some extends successful.
2) The US Public Diplomacy toward Iran: One of the most important measures that the US applied against Iran was initiating anti-Iran public diplomacy, which was aimed at decreasing Iran’s strategic weight, especially, in tarnishing the country’s nuclear program.
During the Iran nuclear crisis, any minor points reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was managed to recognize as a violation of international agreements by the Western states’ officials and media.
At any stage and also in accordance with the importance of the IAEA-reported points, the US managed to criticize Iran as vastly and as deeply as possible. The US intensified its propaganda measures following the IAEA decision to forwards Iran nuclear dossier to the UNSC. At that time, the US and its allies’ attempts increased to introduce Iran’s nuclear activities as a critical issue. Certain phrases, including attempts to access nuclear weapons, Iran nuclear crisis and Iran nuclear dilemma were loudly and continuously shouted by the West-backed special news and analysis.
The US propaganda measures against Iran nuclear program ultimately caused the world public opinion to get worried about Iran’s so-called non-peaceful objectives. Even Iran’s significant achievements in space and nuclear science were introduced as threats to the international community. In contrast to China, such scientific progress was used by the Western nations to intensify pressure on Iran.
The US was pursuing one more objective within the framework of public diplomacy, which was reinvigorating Iran’s regional rivals. In recent years, the West has tried to disseminate the pattern of Turkey to other Middle-Eastern countries following Ankara’s measure to enhance mutual collaboration with other countries, mainly with the Western ones.
3) The US Track II Diplomacy towards Iran: There has been a unique form of talks, known as Track II Diplomacy, between Iran and the US for many years to access better reciprocal understanding in political fields. The US had utilized the Track II Diplomacy in its interaction with the Former Soviet Union, but regarding Iran, there is a big difference in between, which is the lack of any diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington in more than last three decades, therefore, implementing this form of diplomacy is of great importance for both the US and Iran.
Talks between Iran and the US within the framework of Track II diplomacy has happened in certain events, including Pugwash Conference (2008-2009), the American Association of the UN and Rockefeller Brothers Fund under collaboration of SIPRI (2002-2008), the US Stanly Foundation (2006-2007), Landau Network (Italy 2004-2008) and the University of Ottawa (Canada, 2008-2010), however, the above-mentioned talks were carried out in informal frameworks, but they provided suitable opportunity for improving reciprocal understanding between the two countries.
2.3 All-out Sanctions
One of the most important and tangible components of the US containment policy toward Iran was imposing sanctions since 1980 when the relations between the two countries terminated. In general, sanctions against Iran consists of a set of different sanctions imposed by the UN, the EU, the US, the Britain, and some other countries including Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, and Norway. Three main branches of the above-mentioned sanctions have been categorized in the table below based on the sanctions’ elements:
Table 1: Three Main Branches of US Sanctions against Iran
|
Type of sanctions/measures |
Objectives |
Date |
Sanction imposer |
|
Targeted: weaponry, financial, transportation, travel restrictions, seizing properties of people and institutions |
Non-proliferation |
Dec 27, 2006 – Jan 27, 2016 |
The UN |
|
All-out/ comprehensive |
Nuclear program, human rights, terrorism |
Since 1979 |
The US |
|
From restrictive measures up to comprehensive |
Non-proliferation (2007) & human rights (2011) |
Feb 27, 2007 – Jan 2016 |
The EU |
The UN sanctions: Economic sanctions, especially those imposed by the UN, have achieved growing positions in ruling the world over the last twenty years. Due to the rise in UN sanctions, the 1990s were named after the decade of sanctions.
The prevailing understating of sanctions as a tool refers to imposing a set of political and economic pressures that can undermine and oblige the target country to compromise or comply with the imposers’ demands.
The US Sanctions: Ratifying sanctions in the US are carried out in two forms: Executive order by the president of the United States and ratifying sanction as a law by the Congress.
The EU Sanctions: In 2007, the EU imposed sanctions on Iran under the pretext of Iran’s attempts to access atomic weapons. Since 2011, violation of human rights by Iran was added to the objectives of the sanctions and caused the EU to impose the most severe sanctions on Iran. It should be mentioned that no country was targeted by such severe sanctions that Iran faced. When Tehran and the P5+1 countries inked JCPOA in 2016, the EU lifted all sanctions against Iran.
2.4 Offshore Balancing
Offshore balancing is another strategy applied by the US toward Iran. This form of balancing can be considered as a suitable strategy if the hegemonic power does not enjoy the necessary financial sources for primacy.
The hegemonic power, underlined by a large number of elites in the international relations field, including Mearsheimer, Walt, and Layne, is on a decline that has naturally decreased the possibility of continuation of primacy strategy.
Some other elites, including Paul Candy, utilize the term of Imperial Overstretch which means that economic sources of a superpower cannot supply its overseas ambitiousness anymore.
In some sources, including Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG), there are some signs that prove the US is moving towards implementing offshore balancing.
Some experts claim that the DSG has actually been compiled based on two important necessities; the first is that the US economy faces a crisis. Therefore, the country has not as much ability as necessary for extra production to cover military expenditures. A decrease in the US’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and industrial production are two main indicators that testify a decrease in the US economic capability in comparison with its international competitors. A large number of economists believe that China will leave behind the US in terms of GDP, and will turn into the largest economy in the world towards the end of the next decade. Regarding Industrial production, China has already left the US behind with almost 19% of industrial production in the world. In addition, the second is that, in contrast with the post-World War II era, power and wealth have moved from the Europe-Atlantic region to the East. This means that some countries, including China, Japan, South Korea and India are collecting more wealth and power. So, the US must get ready to witness a multi-polar world. It is estimated that China’s military budget will leave behind the US military budget towards the end of the next decade. So, China will naturally move towards shaping a new world order based on its own desires.
Therefore, the US must put the above-mentioned considerations atop its agenda and provides its macro strategies based on new international realities. The US new strategy must include the following items:
1) Decreasing the US military presence abroad, in fact, the US must define new priorities due to its economic and financial restrictions. Washington must define to which countries must deploy forces and from which ones must withdraw.
2) The US must present a specific definition from strategic priorities. The US competitive and strategic advantages have still their roots in sea and air power. So, dispatching ground forces to wage war in Eurasia is not considered as an advantage for Washington.
3) Laying emphasis on the important responsibility of restoring security in Europe and Eastern Asia by the regional players, the offshore strategy, in fact, is transferring the mentioned responsibly, but not sharing it with other countries, to persuade regional states to try more than the US to keep their own security.
4) An eye-catching decrease in the US forces: the US can narrow down terrorist groups’ attacks on its forces by decreasing the quantity of its troops in the Middle East and relying on its sea and air advantages to keep its allies safe. In fact, engagement of the US military forces in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, vast military presence across the world and spending vast amount of military expenditures have altogether undermined the US ability to provide sufficient fund to cover such military activities operations. In years following World War II, when the US became the most powerful country in the world with vast economic capabilities to provide financial supports for waging wars, especially at the ground, it engaged in Korea war. The US wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan occurred when the US had the capability of providing financial support for these wars, but when such capabilities decreased, and then the US had to resort to choosing offshore balancing diplomacy. For instance, the US Track II Diplomacy in the Persian Gulf before the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran (1979) was chosen due to Washington’s economic inadequacy to afford heavy military expenditures.
The US, currently, due to falling in its economic capabilities on one hand, and the emergence of China which will leave the US behind, and will express itself as the first economic power in the world, on the other hand, has to choose offshore balancing strategy, hence, turning towards Eastern axis has been the White House’s formal policy whose aim is regional balancing to deal with the growing power of China.
In the Middle East, reinvigorating the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council and weakening Iran and its allies has been carried out in line with offshore balancing. The offshore balancing is actually relying on boosting the weaker or smaller countries to enable them to deal with the stronger or larger countries in a balanced manner, of course, with the support of the air and sea power of the US.
In such a way, the US will shoulder lesser expenditures, and also will avoid more casualties, because ground war will not be needed. In this case, the US will be able to decrease the total number of its military forces to save a hefty amount of funds. In this regard, Robert Gates, the former secretary of defense, in his address at the University of West Point in February 2011 underscored that the most practical and likely scenario for applying military forces in the future is only air forces and navy. So any secretary of defense who advises the US president to dispatch ground forces to Asia, the Middle East or Africa, must be checked up psychologically. In other words, primacy requires huge expenditure which cannot be provided under an economic crisis, so, offshore balancing strategy should be chosen. It seems that the US now experiences such a situation. The US is after the reinvigoration of Australia, Japan, South Korea, and India in the East to balance the emerging power of China and restrain it ultimately. In the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, the US is after reinforcing Iran’s regional rivals and debilitating Iran’s allies to balance Tehran’s power and in the end, restrain Iran.
The above-mentioned policy means that the US will not engage in nation-building move anymore because that needs a large amount of financial sources, while the US is not in a suitable economic situation to cover them (Nation-building is constructing or structuring a national identity by using the power of the state).
In the meantime, ground wars and nation-building have their own huge expenditures which are not approved by the US public opinion, because their country must engage in wars in foreign countries to restore democracy there or change a dictator regime. In other words, Americans drastically become realistic and practical in such cases. The US, within the framework of containment policy toward Iran, has applied an offshore balancing strategy to strengthen Iran’s rivals and debilitate the country’s regional allies.
2.4.1 Reinvigoration of Rivals
The US tried to reinforce Iran’s regional rivals in different dimensions. The US implemented various measures in this regard, including the creation of a new coalition. Over the past years, Washington has tried hard to create a new coalition against Iran, but such a move could not be materialized unless the US would manage to create a successful international consensus against Iran. Before concluding the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal), the White House managed successfully to create an international consensus against Iran by introducing Tehran’s nuclear program as a threat to international peace and security, whose top achievement for the US was the ratification of an anti-Iran resolution by the UNSC.
One of the most pivotal attempts by the US in the Middle East was persuading regional countries to colligate with Israel against Iran, which was mainly followed by the Gorge W. Bush administration and later by Obama. George Bush administration did its best to create strong relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel to be more united against Iran. Bush administration, during one of his visits to the Middle East in 2008 held talks with certain Arab countries’ leaders, and took part in several press conferences, underscoring that the Arab nations’ interests can be met by colligating with Israel, not with Iran. Bush argued that Iran is ready to turn its enrichment program from peaceful into a military one, so, regional countries must unite against Iran’s objectives. The aforementioned policy was followed by the US during Obama’s tenure. US Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, in his address to defense ministers of the member states of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council in May 2014, called on the Persian Gulf Arab littoral states to unite against Iran because it is a threat to the region. In this regard, attempts to create a coalition between Israel and Arab regional states against Iran have been continued insecurity and political spheres, for instance in May 2013, news sources released that a form of the coalition was created among Israel, a Turkish company and three Arab regional countries. The mentioned coalition was aimed at setting up an alarming system to confront Iran’s ballistic missiles. The mentioned coalition was codenamed 1+4, based on which technicians from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Jordan along with those from Israel would establish several control and command centers in the region. The US termed this coalition as a moderate crescent from united countries, which intended to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As certain Israeli officials asserted, the plan was started after sharing information about Iran’s ballistic missiles. Based on released details about the plan, Israelis would access in a momentary manner to the data coming out from Saudi and Emirati radar centers. In return, Tel Aviv would pave the way for its new partners to access Tel Aviv’s defense missile system and alarming radars online. In addition to the mentioned collaboration, Israeli Arrow tracking, anti-ballistic missiles system would provide missile shield over Jordan against Iran’s missiles.
Such close security-military relations need strong political relations too, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and some other countries engaged in the above-mentioned plan while they had no diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, therefore, preparation for rapprochement between the Arab nations and Israel have been underway.
In the meantime, a continuation of the crisis in Syria caused the Arab countries to keep trying to fortify their positions against Iran and tried more intentionally to approach Tel Aviv. For instance, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have had extensive relations with Israeli officials, either openly or secretly.
In May 2010, Haaretz reported that the Benyamin Netanyahu administration established a new political headquarter in one of the Arab nations in the Persian Gulf region. More likely, the mentioned headquarter became active in the UAE. Israel, previously, had only a limited representative commercial delegation in Qatar.
Due to Arab people’s sensibility towards such news regarding Arab countries and Israel relations, media sources have had no intention to cover or release news of this kind, although, such news testify a change in factions and alliances in the Middle East, which main reason is to confront Iran. In the meantime, the US tried to introduce Iran as the first enemy of Arabs, and also tried to save Israel from any accusation. It should be mentioned that regardless of some disagreements and differences between Iran and some Arab countries, including over the three islands (Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs conflict), Israel was named as the historical foe of Arabs due to occupation of Islamic territories and Jerusalem, but political and propaganda trend have concentrated on changing the old approach in recent years.
In line with its hostile policies towards Iran, the US embarked on enhancing military capabilities of some regional rivals of Tehran.
1) The reinvigoration of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council: The Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was set up in 1981 by six Arab countries located on the Southern coast of the Persian Gulf to access a verity of objectives and intentions in political, economic and security arenas.
The GCC was established by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE and Oman after comprehensive talks in Abu Dhabi. The GCC was set up to expand collaboration between the member states, providing coordination between them in economic, financial, commercial, education and legislation policies, paving the way for scientific promotion, creating joint defense strategy and intelligence collaboration between the member states to confront dissidents and fundamentalist groups. Although, the GCC was supposed to follow a vast variety of objectives, the primary and basic intentions of establishing the GCC, were political and security. So, the commercial and economic objectives were gradually recognized as secondary targets. In fact, the establishment of the GCC was in reaction to regional development, mainly the occurrence of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979, in an attempt to enable the small Arab littoral states in Southern Persian Gulf to share their capabilities in order to further their regional collaboration in security affairs.
Since the deployment of Washington forces in the region, the US approach towards the Persian Gulf region has always concentrated on strengthening Arab countries. A new situation took shape in the region following Iraq’s aggression on Kuwait due to which the US expanded its military presence in a more openly and tangible manner. At the same time and based on the same pretext, the GCC member states decided to deepen their strategic military-security relations with the US, following the intensifying of security concerns in the region. Because of the above-mentioned process, the US and the GCC signed a number of bilateral military agreements which would, as the GCC was firmly interested in, guarantee existence and security of regional countries by the US. As normal, deployment of military forces and equipment requires a conclusion of new agreements with the host country. Therefore, the White House has hold negotiations and consultations with the GCC atop its agenda to pave the way for reaching required agreements over the expansion of bilateral defense collaboration. Therefore, the US inked military collaboration deals with Oman, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in 1990, with Kuwait in 1991, with Qatar in 1992 and with the UAE in 1994.
The above-mentioned deals made the US access to the regional countries’ bases and military hardware possible. The characteristics of the defense agreements were organized according to the demands of the GCC member states, but in general, all agreements enjoy common aims which were nothing but the expansion of security relations, preparation for long-term military collaboration, and implementing joint activities, including military training courses, and supplying defense equipment. The US tried to form a powerful block against Iran by strengthening GCC in recent years; so, one of the main active policies of White House was concentrating on establishing more stronger security-political relations between the six GCC member states. Chuck Hagel, motivated by the mentioned policy, took part in the GCC defense ministers’ summit in Jeddah in May 2013, laid emphasis on the expansion of military collaboration between the US and GCC members. He accused Iran of supporting terrorism and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and claimed that huge security challenges threatened the region. Hagel further demanded regional states to apply a collective response in confronting Iran’s threats. In addition to a remarkable increase in the US diplomatic activities in the Persian Gulf region, Washington was working on another important policy of enhancing security-military relations and providing the GCC member states more arms, ammunition and military hardware.
2) Armaments Sale: The US plan for selling advanced arms and military equipment to reinforce regional countries’ military capabilities was implicitly in Washington’s policies against Iran. The aforementioned policy has been pursued since termination of Tehran and Washington relations in 1980. In fact, along with the tension with Iran, the US sold tens of billions of dollars of armaments to Israel, Saudi Arabia and other littoral states of the Persian Gulf. The US officials, for their part, have justified such policies as the only suitable reaction to Iran’s threats, especially its nuclear program.
According to US officials, it is many years since their country assists the Persian Gulf Arab littoral states and intends to go on with the same policy. The US officials claim that their country is concerned with expansion of Iran’s influence in the region, so, it tries to prevent Iran through reinvigoration of its neighbors.
According to the mentioned policy, the US equipped allies or friendly countries to enable them to confront Iran’s struggles, therefore, the US managed to provide the Persian Gulf Arab littoral states with guided bombs, modern anti-aircraft systems, and cutting-edge alarming radars. Of course, exporting arms and ammunition to the Middle East is not a newly-organized issue. During the years before the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the US was providing its two large regional allies of Iran and Saudi Arabia with a huge volume of weapons to maintain stability in accordance with the US interests in the region. The US replaced Iran with Israel following the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Although, following intensifying Iran’s nuclear standoff, the US tried to export more weapons to the Middle East to reinforce Iran’s rival more than ever. In 2012, Stockholm International Peace Center in a report titled “Persian Gulf Markets for Purchasing International Weaponry”, announced that the total amount of fund spent by the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf during the period from 2008-2011 was at $75.6 billion, out of which 70% was Saudis’ share. Due to Saudi Arabia’s demand for purchasing 48 Typhoon warplanes from Britain and 152 F-15 S.A fighter jets from the US, it is expected that Saudis will be among five large purchasers of armaments for the next four years. In fact, the GCC member states have increased continuously their military expenditures to confront what they call Iran’s threat.
New facts and figures released by the US Secretary of State show that Washington has sold $33 billion of arms and ammunition and military equipment to its allies in the Persian Gulf region since May 2015. In April 2016, David Makibi, the spokesman for the military-political department in the US Secretary of State told Defense News that six countries of the GCC have received anti-aircraft ballistic missiles, attack choppers, advanced destroyers and anti-armored missiles from the US.
“In addition to them, the US government has sold 4,500 versions of guided weapons to the GCC countries in 2015”.
3) Anti-Missile Shield: One of the most important policies of the Obama administration, in the Persian Gulf region, was the enhancement of anti-missile systems and in fact setting up an anti-missile shield in the region. The US media released news over the country’s plan for the deployment of advanced anti-missile systems in the Persian Gulf and mainly in four Arab nations around Iran, while Hillary Clinton talked about Security Umbrella for the Middle East in May 2009.
Although no more details were disclosed about the method of forming the mentioned Security Umbrella in 2009, releasing the news itself showed that the US, in spite of laying emphasis on following interaction with Iran, was actually pursuing threat-building and confrontation options against this country. At that period of time, political and media circles in the US introduced continuation of Iran’s nuclear program as the reason behind the US decision to deploy anti-missile defense system in the Persian Gulf region, they meantime underscored that the US managed to accelerate deployment of defense supplies in the region to confront Iran’s possible missile threats.
It is worth mentioning that deployment of anti-missile system in the Persian Gulf region was in line with the US government strategy to impose more pressure on Iran under the framework of containment policy. News about Security Umbrella was released while Hillary Clinton talked about the US new approach toward Iran, in her meeting with the European nations’ officials in London in late January 2010. She expressed that the US kept a distance from the policy of interaction with Iran because it did not bring about any tangible results, so, the US replaced the policy of interaction with the new policy of pressure and sanctions. Based on the above-mentioned policy, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE approved of the US plan to deploy anti-missile system on their land, however, Kuwait has already enjoyed such a system and the new plan would only renew it. Saudi Arabia and Israel have enjoyed anti-missile systems since a long time ago. Qatar, for its part, had been trying to reinvigorate its defense capabilities, for many years. In this regard, Qatar’s national defense shield enjoyed radar networks and coastal protection systems that were coupled with an advanced fleet of rapid reaction force, including fighter jets, choppers, destroyers and protective barriers mounted on maritime platforms.
General David Petraeus, Former Command-in-Chief of the US Army in Western and Central Asia, in a speech about details of anti-missile system in the Persian Gulf, said that the system included two patrolling warships equipped with special instruments and military hardware and also 2 defense systems deployed to each one of the four countries of Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain. He had already stated that the defense strategy in the Persian Gulf would be upgraded by deploying Patriot anti-missile system, which could not only confront warplanes but also be able to intercept hostile missiles.
According to published data, the US had prepared a comprehensive plan for deployment of a perfect radar and defense system in the Persian Gulf, which could include arming most of the Persian Gulf Arab littoral states with advanced weapons as much as possible. Kuwait was one of the target countries of Pentagon for this plan, so, the congress ratified a bill in order to sell $ 2.2 billion of armaments to Kuwait to fulfill the plan. The arms sold to Kuwait included a sum of 60 advanced Patriot missiles, 20 launch pads and 4 radars. During the period of 2007-2010m, Kuwait had received a sum of 350 Patriot missiles. In the meantime, the UAE spent over $12 billion on procuring anti-missile system.
Pentagon further disclosed details of an agreement in December 2012 through which two advanced anti-missile systems with an approximate value of $2 billion had been sold to the UAE.
These exports included radars and command systems. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia spent $7.1 billion to complete its large arsenal of Patriot missiles in 2012.
Some of the experts believe that the US government’s plan to deploy anti-missile system in the Persian Gulf region aims at assuring the regional Arab states and meantime preventing them from any nuclear arms competition with Iran.
Some experts described the US anti-missile system in the region as a sign of acknowledging Iran’s nuclear capability, so, they believed that Washington. In fact, by its defense plan, tried to confront Iran’s missile power by resorting to deterrence measures and upgrading defense ability of the regional nations. An analysis suggested that the US was worried about Iran’s revenge attacks on its air and ground bases in the Persian Gulf region in case of any possible war, however, there is another considerable point that claims the US tries to prevent any regional security arrangements, which could undermine the role of US in the region or could damage its desired balance. In this regard, an increase in Iran’s power and expansion of Iran’s collaboration with regional nations could be a factor in damaging the balance. Therefore, the US tried to maintain its role in the Persian Gulf by increasing its military presence or by implementing security plans, including deployment of anti-missile defense shield.
4) Military Exercises in the Persian Gulf: Staging war-game in partnership with the Persian Gulf Arab littoral states, has been one of the measures that the US has regularly carried out. The revival of joint defense conception and implementing an integrated strategy to defend the Persian Gulf Arab nations have been introduced as the main objectives of recent military exercises.
As an instance, over 200 fighter jets of the US army and the Arab nations participated in one of the largest maneuvers, which was carried out to target a hypothetical enemy to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in April 2012.
Over 100 warplanes took off from two American aircraft carriers of UBS Enterprise and USS Abraham Lincoln and another 100 fighter jets took off from their bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE. The main purposes of exercise were reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which had been blocked by Iran and exercising how to confront Iran’s possible air raids on oil facilities and crude export terminals in the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
In another military exercise in May 2013, the US and 40 world countries staged a naval war game in the Persian Gulf in which Britain, France and the Persian Gulf Arab states had participated. Discovering and defusing naval mines, in the meantime, protecting fleets and the flow of oil exports from the region and sending a message to Iran that has claimed several times to close the Strait of Hormuz were among the main objectives of the maneuver. A similar maneuver was carried out in April 2016 in the Persian Gulf. It is worth underlining that the main objective of military exercises in the Persian Gulf region in recent years which has been announced by the participants was confronting Iran.
2.4.2 Weakening Iran’s Allies
One of the main policies of the US to confront Iran has been debilitating Iran’s regional allies, including Syria and the Lebanese Hezbollah Resistance Movement. Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Iran and Syria turned into very close partners that even an 8-year-long Iran-Iraq war could not prevent Syria from terminating or even downgrading relations with Iran. Unlike many Arab countries, Damascus managed to keep its close relations with Tehran.
Following unprecedented developments in the Middle East and regime changes in several Arab countries, the US and other Iran’s regional rivals concentrated on changing Syria’s regime. In fact, it was reasoning that after the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Bin Ali in Tunisia and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, changes in regional balance became in favor of Iran and against the US.
Even before recent years’ developments in the Arab world, Resistance Front including Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iraq (after the withdrawal of the US army) had created deep concerns for the US political groups. Crisis in Syria and dispute between pro-government and anti-government militant groups turned the regional atmosphere into two opposite fronts.
The US and some regional states provided unsparing supports for Anti-Assad groups. It is worth reminding that the US policies towards Syria were not restricted to the recent crisis, but Syria has been always targeted by the US sanctions due to providing supports for Hezbollah and Axis of Resistance. Syria has been one of the countries targeted by US sanctions since the 1970s on the pretext of supporting terrorism. Barrack Obama imposed sanctions on Syria and Bashar al-Assad himself in August 2011, based on which, the entire assets of Syria was frozen, the US residents were urged not to engage in any trades with Syria and severe embargos were imposed on Syria’s oil exports. Washington closed its embassy in Damascus in 2011, then, the US along with its allies tried to persuade the other nations not to provide support for the Assad government. Of course, the Assad government’s oppressing policies pave a suitable way for the implementation of the US hostile policies in the Arab country. The US tried to spread a crisis from Syria to Lebanon to debilitate Hezbollah.
The US officials reasoned that Hezbollah was a key agent of Iran and a destabilizing force in Lebanon; therefore, they began to deliberate Hezbollah to restore Washington’s desired command in Lebanon.
Some experts have termed the reasons of the crisis in Syria as the US attempts to debilitate Iran and Hezbollah. From the US point of view, debilitating Hezbollah’s influence in the Middle East will not be simple, because Hezbollah is known as the most complicated resistance movement in the region. Following the war between Hezbollah and Israeli forces in 2006, the group has boosted its public communication and has expanded its satellite TV programs to introduce real ambitions of the resistance to the regional and world countries.
3. Conclusion
Following the conclusion of JCPOA, those who failed the game are still after the revival of Iran's strategic standoff to pave the way securitization of Iran dossier. They want to re-impose more severe sanctions on Iran. There is no prediction about the US move to kill Iran nuclear deal, but the possibility remains in place for intensifying sanctions under other titles, which naturally will be in contrast with the JCPOA sprit. This time, they look for other pretexts to push Iran into strategic standoff again, including violation of human rights, Iran missile program and so on. Another possibility can be an imposition of a new wave of sanctions on Iran by the US States’ governments and not the Federal government. States’ sanctions are meant that a state can impose more severe sanctions on Iran with regard to its own legal and judiciary possibilities. The third way to keep Iran under pressure is implementing strictly the JCPOA which means that seeking new objections to Iran nuclear program and then call for an inspection of the country’s military bases. In such situations, with regard to Iran’s definite opposition to the new demands, the US and its allies will follow the securitization of Iran again. This Americans’ macro strategy is not implemented imminently. Certainly, the Americans are after securitization of Iran nuclear dossier, but their success depends on several issues. Advocators of securitization of Iran in Tel Aviv, Washington and Riyadh are strictly after materialization of the mentioned policy. Iran must concentrate on Saudis’ threats because Riyadh is introducing Iran as an enemy to the world, to use it against the country at international and regional levels. It is more than three decades that Saudis have been acting against us by different tools and without paying any price. For the next fifty years, Iran must not behave in such a way to be used for securitization by foes; in the meantime, Tehran must do its best to prevent those who are trying to introduce the country as a threat.
References
Abbasi Ashlaqi, M. (2006). The US Military-security Relations with the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council after September 11 Event. Middle East Studies Quarterly, 13(2&3), 1-30.
Al Arabiya. (2010). For Confronting Iran Possible Attack: the US Reinvigorates its Missile Defense Network in the Region. Retrieved from
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/01/31/98939.html.
Beinart, P. (2011). Obama's Foreign Policy Doctrine Finally Emerges with 'Offshore Balancing. Retrieved from
Bill, J. (1992). Eagle and Lion (Trans. by M. Qolami). Tehran: Tehran Koubeh Publication.
Buzan, B., Weaver, O, & De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework of Analysis. Boudler, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Campbell, D. (1993). Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
CFR. (2006). Leverett: Bush Administration ‘Not Serious’ About Dealing with Iran. Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/iran/leverett-bush-administration-not-serious-dealing-iran/p10326.
Cortright, D., & Lopez, A. (2002). Smart Sanctions: Targeting Economic Statecraft. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Etemadi, N. (2014). Chuck Hagel's Declaration about Iran and Nuclear Talks between Washington and Tehran. Paris: Radio France.
Fars News. (2013). Naval War-game by the US and 40 of its Allied Countries in the Persian Gulf. Retrieved from
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13920217001148#sthash.Gqki975J.dpuf.
Fayazmanesh, S. (2003). Sanctions against Iran. Review of Radical Political Economics, 35(3(, 221-240.
Gertz, B. (2005). US Report Says Iran Seeks to Acquire Nuclear Weapons. The Washington Times, Retrieved from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050915-112916-1533r.htm.
Huffington Post. (2014). Iran: A Bigger Problem than ISIS. Retrieved from
http://www. huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/06/henry-kissinger-iran-isis_n_5777706.html.
Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Jones, P. (2014). US-Iran Nuclear Track Two from 2005 to 2011: What Have We Learned? Where Are We Going? Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/nejo.12067.
Kazianis, H. (2013). Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates: Allies against Iran? Retrieved from
http://thediplomat.com/2013/05/a-grand-coalition-against-iran/.
Layne, C. (2012). The (Almost) Triumph of Offshore Balancing, National Interest. Retrieved from
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/almost-triumph-offshore-balancing-6405.
PEW. (2008). Some Positive Signs for U.S. Image, "Global economic gloom–china and India notable exceptions. 24-Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey, Retrieved from
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/260.pdf.
Ravid, B. (2010). Israel Rejects Qatar Bid to Restore Diplomatic Ties. Retrieved from www.haaretz.com.
Salami, L. (2013). Armament Purchases of Iran's Southern Neighboring Countries, BBC, Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/mobile/iran/2013/03/130326_an_iran_persian_gulf_weapon_purchases.shtml.
Seifzadeh, H., & Roshandel, J. (2000). Structural Conflicts in the Persian Gulf Region. Tehran: Center of Scientific Research & Strategic Studies of the Middle East.
SIPRI. (2008). SIPRI Yearbook 2009: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Retrieved from
http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2009/files/SIPRIYB0908.pdf.
The US State Secretary. (2009). A Summary of an Interview with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with David Gregory in Visit to Media Program. Retrieved from
Your Comment