Iran-US military faceoff unlikely
By Ebrahim Beheshti
Staff writer
In a recent development, the United States has dispatched over 3,000 military personnel to the Red Sea, ostensibly with the stated goal of thwarting any potential attempts by Iran to commandeer oil tankers and to maintain the security of maritime trade routes. Adding to this display of military presence, the US disclosed its intentions to station a warship along with its complement of F-35 and F-16 fighter jets in the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, the US has floated the idea of deploying its armed forces aboard commercial tankers.
These provocative acts come as Iran and the United States have recently agreed on a prisoner exchange and releasing the former’s frozen assets in South Korea. Shedding light on this complex scenario, Iran Daily has talks to Abouzar Gohari-Moqadam, a professor of international relations. The interview explores the underlying objectives driving America’s fresh military maneuvers.
Iran Daily: Is the recent deployment of new military forces to the Middle East, apparently to secure maritime trade, indicative of a shift in the United States’ strategy? This comes in the context of a perceived effort by the US to reduce its presence in the region over recent years.
Gohari-Moqadam: It is worth contemplating the perspective that the United States might not be entirely scaling back its engagement in the Middle East. The US continues to regard the Middle East as a strategically vital region, owing to its geopolitical positioning and substantial energy reservoirs. The evolution of American priorities appears to be at play here. There was a time when West Asia held primary significance for the US, followed by Europe and East Asia. However, the present landscape has shifted, with East Asia, particularly concerning China, now occupying a central role in America’s hierarchy of priorities, leaving Europe and West Asia in subsequent tiers.
Nonetheless, this shift doesn’t translate to an outright abandonment of West Asia or a lack of strategic intent toward it. Consequently, there hasn’t been a fundamental alteration in the US overarching strategy; rather, there has been an adjustment in how they manifest their presence within the West Asian theater. The recent introduction of new US military forces into the Persian Gulf, purportedly to bolster maritime security, is a tactical maneuver rather than a wholesale strategic shift. Israel and several Arab allies are exerting pressure for a sustained American presence in the region, coupled with heightened commitments to them.
It appears that, in response to these appeals, the United States has recalibrated the nature of its military involvement – transitioning from a prolonged and multi-base presence to one that is short-term and temporary in nature.
How does this shift in American foreign policy priorities correlate with the evolving realities on the ground? Has the rise of new global players like China played a role in shaping this shift?
The recalibration of American foreign policy priorities finds its roots in the dynamics of interplay among major global powers. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the United States pivoted its primary strategy toward countering terrorism, leading to invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the conclusion of the Obama administration and the subsequent tenure of Trump marked a transformative period, wherein the focus shifted from combating terrorism to a renewed emphasis on confronting major powers.
In this revised paradigm, the primary spotlight is now cast upon engagements with formidable global actors. Foremost among these is China, emerging as a major power and a strategic adversary to the United States. Consequently, the Biden administration is presently aligning itself with a doctrine reminiscent of its Cold War stance against the former Soviet Union, colloquially termed the “containment policy.” In this context, the US is adopting a multifaceted approach to rein in China, encompassing military cooperation, economic entanglements, and diplomatic affiliations with its network of allied nations.
How do you assess the US recent military deployment with the aim of upholding maritime trade security while also making several accusations against Iran?
This appears to be an American blame game. Over the past years, the US has been the main source of maritime instability, posing palpable threats to the interests of nations across the world, particularly within the Middle East. The allegations leveled against Iran in the Persian Gulf can be best described as pretexts, bereft of tangible manifestations in reality. This initiative seems to have been prompted by Israeli pressure.
Israel, wrestling with internal discord and aiming to divert public attention away from domestic developments, is pressuring US to augment its presence within the region. This move is strategically aimed at veering the focus away from Israel’s internal crises.
Iran, on the other hand, has adhered to a steadfast policy over the last four decades, advocating for regional security to be overseen by regional stakeholders without external interventions. During this span, Iran’s potency has multiplied, underpinned by a host of augmented military capabilities, particularly those encompassing naval power to maintain regional security.
Could the recent deployment, following two years of indirect talks between the US and Iran as well as a recent prisoner exchange breakthrough, be interpreted as a strategic move to exert influence in upcoming negotiations on significant matters such as the nuclear issue and potential sanctions relief?
The US actions carry a provocative undertone and, as per your interpretation, can be seen as a display of force against Iran, although its intended outcomes might not be fully realized. This show of power serves dual purposes within the context of the Biden administration’s domestic narrative. It functions as a signal of authority, geared toward countering criticisms from the Republicans, who accuse Biden of exhibiting weakness in the face of Iran. President Biden is seeking to project a resolute stance.
Concurrently, this move appears to be influenced by Israel’s pressure and its objective of diverting attention from internal dilemmas. Simultaneously, it could be construed as a veiled admonition to Iran. Throughout the protracted years of nuclear negotiations with Iran, the United States has never refrained from uttering its military threats, operating under the premise that such displays could potentially yield favorable bargaining leverage. However, it is pertinent to note that these threats have yet to impact Iran’s stance.
Experts suggest that the military deployment might be a reaction to Arab countries strengthening ties with China and Iran. The United States, in response, aims to encourage these nations to remain loyal while dissuading them from aligning more closely with Eastern powers, particularly China. What’s your take on that?
The international geopolitical landscape is in a state of flux, witnessing a transformative shift where the sole centrality of the United States is no longer indisputable. China’s rise as a robust player within East Asia, alongside other influential regional entities, contributes to these dynamic changes. Notably, America’s regional partners are attuned to these global shifts, prompting them to pursue associations with China, Russia, and regional players like Iran. In this context, the recent dispatch of additional forces appears to carry a message to US allies: affirming continued commitment to their security interests while concurrently discouraging them from forging deeper connections with China and Russia.
Nevertheless, this maneuver might not yield substantial success in achieving the desired outcomes.
Although talks between Iran and the US over sanctions and the 2015 nuclear deal haven’t yielded a final solution, both sides appear to be handling the tensions. In light of this, do you believe that the fresh military deployment, which you’ve termed provocative, could exacerbate tensions between the two nations?
No, I have no worries about the eruption of a military confrontation. The US has consistently maintained a presence within the region. Additionally, as I previously mentioned, the influx of new military personnel is of a transient nature rather than a permanent fixture. The US finds itself in a position that doesn’t favor the initiation of military tensions.