For as long as US and Israel’s stand-off on Iran continues, Tehran’s neighbours (Afghanistan, Pakistan and GCC states) will remain vulnerable to serious security threats. Pakistan’s strategic imperative to have a friendly neighbour in the West, i.e. Iran, will have to surmount major obstacles from the US and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan’s efforts to increase trade, especially with energy-rich Iran are currently being suffocated by the US.
Meanwhile, the financial health of the GCC (mainly UAE) is being affected by the economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the US while an attack on Iran will pose major challenges to their security. The foreseeable outcome for Pakistan and Afghanistan would be that even after the US and Nato withdrawal, conflict in the shape of a heightened state of civil war in Afghanistan with its resultant fallout for Pakistan will continue to destabilise the region stretching the economies and fragmenting the societies even further.
In such an atmosphere, a major confrontation with Iran would only make things more difficult for the Afghan and Pakistani governments as both countries are in immediate vicinity and have significant Shiite populations of their own with close cultural, business and religious ties with Iran. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan would face major political and potential militant backlash in the aftermath of a war with Iran. Iran has been under the clergy rule for more than three decades and the initial euphoria and hope of good governance, better future and increased prosperity among the masses has diminished greatly.
The clerical dispensation under Ayatollah Khomeini’s dictum of Wilayat-e-Faqih, where the interpretation in both religious and worldly matters of the chosen Ayatollah is to be considered sacrosanct, has virtually stifled the freedom of the people in the manner they would like to live their lives. The overbearing attitude of the clerics is now being increasingly resented and challenged by an agitated and restless public who want change.
Their dissent is being subdued by force reminiscent of the dark days of the Shah. The public disenchantment with the current system of governance continues to increase and is posing a real danger to the Iranian regime. Iran’s current ruling elite, the clergy, has raised the bogey of an imminent attack by the Great Satan (US) in cahoots with Israel in an effort to “ignite a nationalist backlash that would help bolster their regime”. Not satisfied with the playing of the US/Israel card, the Iranian clerics are also employing the sectarian threat from its predominantly Sunni Arab neighbours.
The visit of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to the disputed island of Abu Mousa in the Gulf was an act of provocation. Iran is also using its influence to incite the Shiite population in the GCC states to rebel against the rulers. Among the GCC countries, Bahrain is the only one where majority of the population is Shiite while the ruling family is Sunni. Using the very successful Iraqi strategy, Iran fomented major uprising of Shiites in the Kingdom of Bahrain against the emir; and Saudi Arabia had to send its forces to quell the rebellion. For the Iranian clergy, the Saudi action was a propaganda bonanza; they proclaimed that the Sunni rulers of the GCC were guilty of Shiite genocide in their respective nations and their eventual aim is the destruction of Shiite Iran.
In hindsight, it appears that in the beginning, GCC states did not fully comprehend the Iranian strategy against the Arabs. Their overreaction to the Iranian provocations might have actually promoted the latter’s design. Now that a clearer insight into the Iranian provocative and its mischievous plan has emerged, GCC states must come up with a modified game plan to thwart Iran’s “policy of intimidation”.
Iran’s “Policy of Intimidation” is used to unite its internal front and avoid internal disintegration of the theological regime. Policies used are:
1. Sunni threat to the existence of the Shiite sector of Islam.
2. Israel Zionist existence as a threat to the Shiite state.
3. Nuclear technology development as the means to protect the Shiite state of Iran from the surrounding threats.
In the current environment, while an armed US-Israel combined military campaign cannot be ruled out, it is considered a low probability. However, Iran’s refusal to limit uranium enrichment programme exposes it to the possibility of a US-Israeli led military action. If Iran is perceived to be continuing its march towards nuclear weapons and appears close to achieving the goal, the likelihood of an armed intervention increases significantly, which will have disastrous economic and security consequences for the neighbouring states, besides creating a major negative impact on global economy.
Iran needs to tone down its rhetoric against the US and Israel because it neither has the capability nor can it afford a military adventure without risking destruction by a massive US-Israel led military reprisal. Both Iran and Israel are governed by ultra right-wing parties and presently both are engaged in a verbal exchange, which is primarily aimed at their own domestic populations (mainly right-wing sections) to shore up respective vote banks. History is replete with incidences when such brinkmanship has led to catastrophic wars which neither side really wanted or wished for.
Within the Middle East, the degree to which the UAE can maintain a tight albeit delicate balance between its security and economic needs in the coming years will be determined by how well it responds to the changing dynamics in the Gulf and the wider South Asian region. The US-Iran confrontation, economic recession, home-grown extremism and the continued violence in Afghanistan and Iraq are giving rise to new technological, social and geopolitical concerns in the GCC region, especially in the UAE with its multi-ethnic society and trade-oriented economy with global ties.
A diverse immigrant population due to globalisation, coupled with the revolution in communications and transportation, makes it easy for extremist elements to infiltrate hot spots and remain a viable threat in other parts of the world even, when they are isolated within a limited geographic space themselves. Globalisation puts both positive and negative effects on socio-cultural and political dynamics of any region, especially for prosperous and dynamic states such as the UAE, Singapore etc. As a logical outcome, societies with complex socio-economic frameworks — such as UAE — are susceptible to growing influences of transnational criminal gangs, extremist organisations, shadowy NGOs and other non-state actors.
More than any other country, they need to keep pace with the globalisation trends through a better understanding and acceptance of the impact of the information explosion through the use of internet and the social media (Facebook, Twitter, cellphone, texting etc) especially on the youth. Enlightening the masses through electronic and print media to inculcate moderation and an open-minded approach to socio-cultural diversity is extremely important if the UAE has to remain in the lead as a dynamic, vibrant and economically stable country in the region.
Recommendations
The social media phenomenon has made information easily accessible globally and any attempt to unnecessarily curb it will be counterproductive. For the younger generation, the use of mobile phones, texting, Facebook, You Tube, twitter, etc (that are part of the social media) has become a way of life. As the Middle Eastern population, especially in the GCC states, consists of a very high percentage of young people (16-45 years bracket), who are educated and tech-savvy, the impact and use of the social media and internet connectivity has mushroomed. Through intelligent use of social media, the state should remain connected with its youth, giving them a sense of belonging with the state and its policies so that they are not alienated and become easy targets for recruitment by fanatical groups or ideologies. After Saddam Hussain, GCC states have lost much of their political and economic clout with Iraq largely because of Iranian interference.
Unless this anomaly is removed, successive Iraqi governments will remain heavily influenced by the fellow sectarian Iranian theocratic regime, to the detriment of its Arab neighbours. The present Noori Al Maliki-led government of Iraq is unacceptable to GCC states because it is strongly suspected of being a puppet of Iran. Even his election to the high office was manipulated by Iran, which is aiding him to hold on to power. This state of affairs is unacceptable for GCC states and especially US, which still has much influence over the Iraqi administration. For the sake of Iraq and the region, the Iraqi public should be aided to elect a government that is not remotely controlled by Iran and which can independently secure Iraq’s national interests. For the GCC states, the sectarian orientation of Iraqi leaders would be immaterial as long as the policies they adopt are independent of the Iranian influence and are not directed against the neighbouring Arab states. Historically, sanctions have not been helpful in resolving political or military disputes.
This is also true in the case of the present heavy sanctions that US and European Union have imposed on Iran in a bid to dissuade it from further uranium enrichment. These sanctions are actually not affecting the ruling clique and they have used the sanctions to further whip up anti-West sentiments among the masses, thus diverting their attention from the failures of governance. By hurting the people of Iran, the US and its allies are ensuring that the common population of Iran gravitates further towards its clergy. To weaken the theological regime of Iran, the international community should abandon policies that mostly hurt civil society of Iran and adopt policies that affect the regime.
The regime in Iran survives in the environment of the international community’s economic sanctions, by the coronary artery supply from Syria and the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq. To directly affect the regime in Iran, policies should be adopted against the Iraqi government and actions should be taken against Bashar Al Assad’s regime in Syria. Blocking the coronary artery of Iran’s theological regime will urgently need a coronary double bypass to ensure the Iranian public does not get asphyxiated in the process. This can best be achieved by allowing Pakistan and UAE, Iran’s immediate eastern and southern neighbours, to resume full trade relations with Iran without the suffocating restrictions of the sanctions. Such a move would benefit the common citizens of the three nations creating a surfeit of goodwill among them. The positive public sentiments would then lead to the respective governments to adopt a more conciliatory approach towards one another. America and the West should realise that such an action should result in reducing Iran’s sense of isolation and persecution, making the current regime or its successor amenable to conflict resolution through peaceful dialogues rather than rhetoric, acts of subversion and threat of violence.
While GCC states and the world community must continue to condemn the atrocities and genocide being conducted by Iran against its own citizens and its aid to Syria to commit similar acts on the Syrian public, measures that hurt the common Iranians and Syrians far more than the regimes should be avoided.
For Pakistan and the UAE, friendly relationship with Iran, without jeopardising their fraternal ties with Saudi Arabia, is critical. A cessation of hostilities between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a very desirable outcome for both and will greatly benefit not only Pakistan and UAE, but also other littoral Gulf states. Acquiring greater sectarian, economic and defence harmony between the Gulf and South-West Asian states, including Afghanistan, can be a strategic game changer and a harbinger of peace in the region.
Dr Mansour Bin Tahnoun Al Nahyan lectures in Political Science at the American University of Sharjah.
