8 May 2020, NIICE Commentary 4567
Dr. Khushnam PN
The world is busy fighting the unprecedented the COVID-19 pandemic and many are silently concerned about how the worst-hit Iran would cope with the pandemic under the debilitating economic sanctions of the United States, and the consequent international isolation. This became further compounded when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) could not respond to the Iranian loan request owing to the pressure of the United States. But the world was taken by surprise when the news of the successful launch of Iran’s first military (reconnaissance) satellite called “Noor” took place on 22 April 2020. This makes one thing clear that the “Maximum Pressure” strategy of the US has not only failed, but has also motivated Iran to respond to and adjust with the new reality.
On 30 April 2020, Iran celebrated the “Persian Gulf National Day”, marking the anniversary of the successful military campaign by Shah Abbas I of Persia, which forced the Portuguese navy out of the Strait of Hormuz in 1622. As a part of the celebration, the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, addressing the US, remarked that, “this gulf’s name is the Persian Gulf not the Gulf of New York or Washington Gulf” and “the US must stop applying its conspiracy plots against the Iranian nation who has its name on this gulf and has protected it in history.” It has been the official policy of Iran that the Persian Gulf belongs to its littoral states, and they are capable of its security. Therefore, there is no reason for the US navy to be present there.
The use of hard power, like economic sanctions or military presence can work for a desired outcome only when it is used as a tactic of persuasion to mend the behaviour of a state. If it is pursued to the extent that it starts hurting the whole population at large, it generally leads to national resistance. In the context of Iran, the economic sanctions have been there in one form or another for last four decades, since the revolution that led to the overthrowing of the US backed Pahlavi dynasty. The Iranian regime is accustomed to it and has learned to manage it, first through its most difficult decades of the 1980s, when it was at war with Iraq, and now through a nationwide healthcare crisis. The resistance economy has been used by Iran as a concept to deal with these economic sanctions. Gradually, it has become a symbol of national unity and pride in the country. Therefore, it doesn’t seem that the “maximum pressure” of sanctions is going to have the result intended by the US.
Only a pragmatic multilateral approach can produce a solution, through negotiations among the parties involved. The Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA), thus, fits into this pattern, as it was drafted after negotiations and discussions among the five Global superpowers and the Islamic Republic. The unilateral US withdrawal from the JCPOA has marred the settlement, as it amounts to a breach of trust. and defeats the rules of an international treaty. The sanction regime cannot bring a solution on its own. Rather, undue prolongation may intensify and entrench disputes. The route of diplomacy would have better served the Trump administration’s demand for more commitment from Iran, by considering the interests and needs of the latter. Similarly, in the Syrian crisis, the Iranian stake in the conflict and its clash of interests and policies with those of Israel should have assumed necessary consideration through diplomacy to attain peace in the region. Besides, such unilateralism would cause harm to the multilateral institutions and mechanisms which are necessary for international peace and cooperation. Even the US allies find it difficult to follow its decision. The Europeans were looking for an alternative mechanism, like INSTEX (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchange), to continue to do business with Iran. Such a move could cause further widening of the differences in the EU-US relations.
In the contemporary world, unilateral action is difficult to sustain for long, especially since the global economic interdependence is so deep and multifarious. The countries like Russia and China, whose policies and stands are at loggerheads with that of the US on many issues, will not follow the decisions of the latter when it would compromise their economic interests and affects their sovereignty. The NATO member in the region, Turkey, along with China, have already declared that they will continue to import Iranian oil, which is necessary for their energy security and national interests. In such a scenario, ending of the sanction waiver of eight countries to import oil from Iran with the declared goal of bringing its oil export to zero could not force the Iranian regime for renegotiating the JCPOA. Rather, such a step, which hit the common man in Iran hard, has perhaps strengthened the position of the hardliners involved in the domestic politics of the country.
The increasing US military build-up in the region for the excuse of an unproven threat from Iran has every chance lapsing into a hot conflict, which will bring only destruction and destabilisation in the region. The killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in February 2020 and the Iranian counter-air attack on the US bases in Iraq has brought a war on the horizon of the Gulf. Such a cycle of exchanges will push the United States and the region in a quagmire, with disastrous implications for the peace and security of the world. Prudence lies in application of smart tactics, an astute blend of hard power and soft power, in line with the evolving circumstances. Neither hard power nor soft power can attain the intended goals alone. The developing bellicosity in the Gulf needs a pragmatic de-escalation approach and a smart power strategy, weaving pressure with diplomacy, on the part of the US to achieve its goal. The US must also utilise the JCPOA as a platform to create genuine peace and security in the region.
