asianaffairs

Stability at risk as power balance tilts

In the wake of the latest IAEA report on Iran, analyst George Friedman and defence expert Robert Kaplan discuss with political analyst Colin Chapman the potential threats to world oil supplies from the Persian Gulf, and US President Barack Obama's limited options.

TROUBLED WATERS: The IRGC navy is developing an impressive asymmetric warfare capability of suicide boats

Colin Chapman: Few will be surprised by the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran. Its finding that the Tehran regime has computer models that can only be used to develop a nuclear weapon has triggered a new wave of speculation on the prospects of an Israeli strike. But there may be other more pressing concerns as US forces leave Iraq.

The obvious question as we move to a point where Israeli bombers can fly in clear skies over Iraq, or soon will be able to be: is this 'high noon' for Iran?

Robert Kaplan: Not necessarily, because just the fact that they are moving closer to developing a weapons capacity for their nuclear material does not mean that they can miniaturize, put it on a warhead and send it somewhere. It could be a long way from that. Of course it is a much more acute threat for Israel than it is for the United States. You also have to consider the possibility that so what if Iran has three or four nuclear weapons with no air defence system, relative to what the Americans can do. But what does that mean? Aren't the 100 nuclear weapons in Pakistan a

much greater threat? Or would the Saudis respond by parking Pakistani nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia, thereby fusing the South Asian and the greater Middle East crisis into one? There are a lot of questions out there and they will continue to play out. But this is nothing particularly new at this point.

CC: So, George, there's all this talk of an Israeli strike, and we've heard it before. Is it just rhetoric?
George Friedman: We are at a critical point. The critical point is not about nuclear weapons. The critical point is that the US is completing its withdrawal from Iraq. We've seen recently the arrests of Sunnis in Iraq by the Maliki government and the Iranians are increasing their power. The balance of power is shifting in the region. The United States and Israel both want the Iranians to pull back and as has happened several times before, they increased the drumbeat of the threat of nuclear weapons in order to create a psychological situation where the Iranians would reconsider their position. The problem you have here is that the Israelis really don't have the ability to carry out the kind of strikes we are talking about. They certainly have nuclear weapons if they want to use nuclear weapons on some of the facilities near Tehran. The more interesting question is: do they have the ability to carry out the multiday attacks on multiple sites with a relatively small air force? The answer is they may do but they cannot deal with something else. What if the Iranians respond by putting mines in the Straits of Hormuz?

CC: And this is critical, isn't it, because 40 per cent of the world's sea-bound oil goes through the Straits. The Iranians have the longest coastline along the Straits of Hormuz and along the whole Persian Gulf.

RK: The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps navy, which is separate from the Iranian navy, is developing a very impressive asymmetric warfare capability of suicide boats that can ram into everything from merchant tankers to destroyers. Keep in mind in this 'hot house' media environment where the world is all together, simply pinprick attacks on destroyers of other nations will garner incredible media news. It will seem to be an attack on an American Navy that has been inviolate since World War II, in fact.

GF: This is really crucial, that the psychological effect is substantial. But the effect on markets in this case is substantial. If the perception was that the Iranians have the ability to mine the Straits or in some other way threaten these extremely expensive tankers that are up to a billion dollars including their cargo, which has to be insured, they could really be threatened. The price of oil would rise dramatically and stock markets would tumble in a situation where Europe is in a major crisis and the financial system of the world is shaky. If we suddenly wound up with $200, $300 or $400 for a barrel of oil, the global landscape could be reshaped forever.

RK: Keep in mind that personalities enter into this a bit. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been seen for years and even decades...as a very flawed personality in and of himself, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his viewpoints. As we enter into a presidential election season in the United States where even someone like President Obama would be forced not to criticize Israel publicly, the Israelis, thinking cynically — and all governments think cynically — would say this is a window of opportunity for us to bomb Iran, with fewer American domestic repercussions.

GF: That may be but it's very important that there is one domestic American repercussion. If the oil is cut off, the effect on the United States would be enormous and Israel will be blamed for a massive recession or depression.

RK: But as I was saying, Netanyahu has the kind of personality where he would risk that.

CC: This will be a catastrophe, given the situation that could evolve in the Persian Gulf. What kind of advice is Obama's defence department giving him? Given that he is a man of great caution, I think what would you expect him to be doing?

GF: I think it is very clear what they are saying to him — bluff. He is going out very publicly, which you don't do if you are planning a major attack, and very publicly bluffing.

RK: The US Defence Department does not have the appetite for war with Iran. Remember, all Iranians, not just the regime, supports Iran being a nuclear power. Ten years from now we might have closer relations with Tehran than we have with Riyadh. The last thing we want to do is alienate even the Iranians who are sympathetic to us. Iran is a crucial country. It fronts not just the oil-rich Persian Gulf but also the oil-rich Caspian Sea. No other country does that. It has a window onto Central Asia, which no other country in the Middle East has. So it's enormously important. We are playing for high long-term stakes with Iran, which may be a future ally of the United States.

GF: We have to also recognise that with their increased power in Iraq, with the probability that the al-Assad regime in Syria — Iranian allies — can survive, and with Hezbollah in Lebanon, we are looking at a situation where Iranian influences could stretch from the Afghan border to the Mediterranean. This is an enormously dangerous situation and it's not really about nuclear weapons.

RK: Afghanistan to the Mediterranean approximates the ancient Persian empire of antiquity. Remember, Persia — Iran — as a linguistic cultural force extends from Alawite Syria eastward right up to the Indus River in Pakistan.

CC: George and Robert, we need to leave it there. Thank you very much.

top