The Dialectics of Strangling Iran and Hormuz Sattar kassem May 22/2012 This paper deals with the dialectical relationships between strangling Iran by the Western countries, Particularly the US, through punishments and Iran’s readiness to close the strait of Hormuz in view of the military capabilities of each side, and the ability of each to favorably influence the direct popular and international environments that are expected to be most affected by this relationship. Four interacting main factors make this relationship: the measures against Iran as a reaction to her nuclear program, the Iranian reaction to these measures particularly in Hormuz, the sources of power that each side has on the disposal in both the violent and nonviolent spheres, and the way proponents and opponents of each side are influenced. This dialectical relationship presumes that each factor has an impact on the other factors individually and collectively, and this impact is dynamic rather than static. Discussing such a subject-matter draws importance from the high tension between the West, specifically between the US and Israel on one side, and Iran on the other. This tension has been accumulating since 1979, and showed no sign of easing or coming to a halt. By the end of 2011, tension flared to the point of strangling Iran through international oil embargo or acts of boycotting if an international decision is elusive, and of closing the Strait of Hormuz under the slogan: if Iran doesn’t sell her oil, then other Gulf-states won’t; and if Iran suffers from low income, then other states should suffer from high bills. Mutual threats continue to the extent of militarization. This endangers stability and puts the Arab Islamic region on the verge of a destructive war that will have a devastating impact on the economies and well being of peoples and states within and without the region. Questions awaiting answers The basic question that awaits an answer is: will war erupt if Iran shuts down Hormuz due to a tight oil embargo? Other questions follow: are the Western nations led by the US capable of mobilizing enough international support to impose international embargo on Iran’s oil? How sagacious is it to strangle Iran oil-wise? Does the balance of power allow for a comprehensive oil embargo, and for Iran to retaliate by closing the strait? Upon what power factors each side relies? How the interests of other states in the region and without influence the decision of each side? Topics to be discussed This paper is divided into the following topics: 1- A background on the commercial importance of Hormuz strait, and the long-living tension and friction between Iran and the Western countries particularly the US; 2- The measures against Iran and the expected Iranian reaction; 3- The capabilities of each side and the ability to achieve objectives. This is divided into two parts: a- The direct capability at hand; b- The indirect capabilities that each side can use or benefit from. This includes the positions of countries and organizations that are concerned in a possible conflict such as Russia, China, the Arab states and Islamic organizations. The paper ends with a general evaluation, and the writer’s vision of the possibilities of war in view of the interacting pro and con factors. Pertinent factors are dialectically inter-weaved to form a picture that might reflect reality. Hypothesis The hypothesis of this paper is that the Western countries will soften their rhetoric against Iran temporarily while continuing their measures to harm the Iranian regime, while Iran will proceed into her nuclear program without escalating her verbal threats to the West and Israel. This means that preparations for war by both sides will continue. Methodology Methodologically, the author depends mostly on content analysis of both verbal statements and policies in effect. Besides, descriptive and analytical approaches are helpful. The author would like to mention for the sake of precision that what is meant by tension is the tension between Iran and Israel and the Western countries such as Britain, Germany, France and the US. But the paper concentrates on the US as a leader and the most capable of carrying military action against the Iranian nuclear sites, and opening Hormuz if shut. Hormuz and the Escalation of Tension Tension has described the relations between the US and Iran since 1979, the ascent of Khomeini regime to power, and its marginality has been increasing. Attempts to lower the level of tension upon the basis of improving relations or reaching mutual understanding have been extremely scarce although periods of cooling it down have been witnessed. For more than thirty years, Iran has labeled the US as the Big Satan, while the US under Bush, je administration classified Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil. The continued frays have touched finally on Hormuz which is an essential water passage for international trade and wheels spinning. Tension isn’t expected to freeze at the gates of Hormuz, but it might expand to include many states in the gulf and the region in general, and the destruction of economic and military strategic installations for both sides. Hormuz connects the Gulf which embraces important and gigantic oil and gas installations and ports with the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. It is surrounded by Iran and Oman, and divided into water navigation lanes: two entrances on the Iranian side, and two exits on the Omani side. Its narrowest width is around 54 km. Around 35% of maritime international oil trade passes through, and 20% of the total international oil trade. The world pumps 88 million barrels of oil a day, 17 million are pumped from the gulf area. This forms a significant percentage of international oil production that could harm the international economies if oil tankers are denied passage. In Addition, the Gulf hides two thirds of the discovered oil reserves. Tension Background Delving into the details of the tension between the US and Iran isn’t the aim of this paper, but making a quick survey sheds some light on the present squabble. It is well-known that Iran was a close ally of the US, and the toppled Shah was described as the American policeman in the Gulf, but the Iranian opposition always expressed dismay with American policy because of it thought to be American domination over Tehran. That was evident in Khomeini’s speeches and writings that used to describe the US as a big evil, and he closest ally Israel as an artificial state that should be removed. The Iranians wasted no time after toppling the Shah. They immediately took over the Israeli embassy in Tehran, and handed it to the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to become the first Palestinian embassy in the world; and Iranian students assaulted the American embassy on Nov. 4, 1979, and held American hostages for more than a year. On the other side, the US stood by the Shah at the time of the Iranian revolution, gave him advice, and mobilized Arab governments in his support although he was ruthless in facing the demonstrations. She escalated tension by imposing an embargo on war and civil planes spare-parts, and financial measures against Tehran in 1979. The US has been intensifying economic, financial and technological measures since then. Besides, the US sided with Iraq in her war against Iran in 1982, and deliberately started passing support to both sides in an exhausting process. Militarily, the US destroyed several Iranian war boats in the gulf in 1988, and pointed in years 2007/2008 that the Iranian military boats were cruising close to American war-ships. In 2009, the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard threatened that Iran will close Hormuz if Iran is attacked by either Israel or the US. The American Fifth Fleet commander responded that the US won’t allow Iran control one third of the world’s oil. Beneath the surface, it is thought that the two countries have been engaged in secretive attacks. According to American ABC network, the Iranian Al-Quds Army got involved in some explosions against the American forces in Afghanistan. The US, on her part, defrauded some material necessary for missile production imported by Iran from different countries, and recruited hackers to ruin the Iranian nuclear and military sites computers. The US continues her drone espionage activities over Iran, and Iran could down a couple of the planes and electronically control a third. Since the rise of the Moslem to power, Iran has been threatening Israel and promising to erase her from the map of the Arab-Islamic region. Iran labels Israel as the spoilt baby of the West that has been established upon the miseries and the pains of the Palestinians, and always calls upon the Moslems and the Arabs to liberate Palestine and send the Jews back to Europe. To show seriousness, Iran has established Al-Quds Army (means Jerusalem Army), invented an annual day called Al-Quds where intellectuals and experts of different fields of study gather in Tehran to discuss mainly topics related to the liberation of Palestine. Also, Tehran has been sporadically holding anti-Zionism conferences that shed doubts on the holocaust. These activities aren’t pleasant occasions for the West in general, and the US in particular, and add to the Western and Israeli concerns about the Iranian nuclear program, and promote the insistence on curbing the program or imposing close and transparent supervision. In thirty three years, American threats to Iran have been a constant phenomenon as well as the Iranian threats to Israel. Iran doesn’t threaten the US militarily, but she threatens her domination over the Gulf continues inciting the Gulf Arab states to adopt a policy of self defense and security building. But the US is worried about the Iranian nuclear program which means the possibility of developing arms of deterrence that will limit the American influence on the oil producing countries. The US argument that Iran violates the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is undermined by two major realities: one is that Iran isn’t on the verge of manufacturing the nuclear bomb; the second is that Israel owns the bomb. Measures against Iran The US has been escalating American her measures against Iran since 1979, and intensifying her international efforts to mobilize international participation in besieging Iran. These efforts more than doubled in the last decade due to the development of the Iranian nuclear program. Other Western countries joined the US and tightened the rope around the Iranian neck on the hope that Iran would choose reconciliatory negotiations. The UN Security Council came to the fore and decided to impose international measures against Iran in accordance with the Seventh Chapter of the UN Charter. The Council unanimously decided on Dec. 13, 2006 to prohibit providing Iran with technology and instruments that might help Iran in enriching uranium or producing heavy water or developing launchers and missiles, and decided to impose sanctions on persons and parties who extend help to the Iranians in this regard. The failure of Iran to abide by the UN resolution concerning the free and unobstructed access privileged to the inspectors of the international nuclear agency inspectors to her nuclear installations, the Security Council decided on June 9, 2010 with a majority of 12 votes to upgrade the measures concerning commercial and financial deals related to the Iranian nuclear program and all provisions attached to them. The punitive measures against Iran have proved to be harmful but not crippling, and Iran continued to enrich uranium up to 20%, according to official Iranian announcements. The Iranian language and activities showed challenge and determination. The Western countries led by the US decided to go for tougher measures that would include the isolation of the Iranian Central Bank and refraining from importing Iranian oil. As they were disappointed by the Russians and the Chinese in the Security Council consultations, they averted to their international influence to curb imports from Iran. The European Union decided on Jan 18, 2012 to frost the financial reserves of the Iranian Central Bank, and ban oil imports from Iran without specifying a deadline of implementation. What is noticeable in the Western steps toward strangling Iran economically is that they tighten the embargo to the extent that choices before Iran are limited to two: either surrender or escalation. Historically, cautious warriors usually leave space for the surrounded enemies to flee the battlefield or evade the confrontation. Tightening the siege is adventurous and might push the enemy toward fighting to death and imposing real dangers of excessive fighting. The Western countries aren’t sensitive to this uncalculated policy, but apparently they are having difficulties in mobilizing enough nations to push Iran into a desperate corner. Europe responded positively to US measures and decided on Jan 23, 2012 to seek alternatives to the Iranian oil with July, 2012 as a deadline. The European countries particularly Italy, Spain and Greece import around 20% 0f the Iranian oil exports that amount to 2,600,000 barrels a day , and can do harm to the Iranian economy without avoiding harming their troubled economies. The US didn’t need much effort to convince South Korea and Japan to cooperate, but both countries are suffering economically and they needed to make the necessary calculations to avoid higher expenditures. Japan is still thinking of alternative energy sources in the aftermath of Fokoshima and would be happy if Iran offers oil at favorable prices. India hasn’t been responsive because she imports around 16% of the Iranian oil, and looks toward increasing her investments in the Iranian oil fields. China which imports around 20% of the Iranian is investing in Iran and unwilling to sacrifice for the convenience of the US.
Posted on: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:03:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015