Leaders and Politicians in Iran Used the Iranianism Concept - Report Example

The Arabian Gulf xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Introduction The Arabian Gulf also known as the Persian Gulf has made a long history over the years. This is in terms of material destruction, political violence and human losses. The Iranian-Islamic revolution which occurred in 1979 and the end of the war between Iran and Iraq in 1988 were the most devastating in the modern history of the Arabian Gulf. The ensuing war between Iran and Iraq and the revolution of Iran accelerated the insecurities among the surrounding territories. This period transformed the region which had been characterized by peaceful regional relations, into a region full of hostility. The kind of bloodshed experienced during this period had never been witnessed ever since the First World War and Vietnam. It is estimated that about 204,795 lost their lives during the period; 16,780 civilians and 188,015 military. After the withdrawal of the British forces in 1971, Iran and Saudi Arabia entered into consensus which secured a decade of relatively peaceful and stable relations within the Persian Gulf. Between 1968 and 1978, the regional states of the Arabian Gulf outlawed the use of massive military forces and accentuated the role of democracy. Contemporary norms and legitimization were central factors in consolidation of the regional society. Persian Gulf was devoid of meaningful military presence after withdrawal of British troops in 1971. Meanwhile, the West legitimated the regional equilibrium under the support of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The duopolistic equilibrium between Iran and Saudi Arabia defined the code of conduct for the region and inhibited utopian experiments. This protection against utopian experiments was not mainly enforced by the military forces but instead was based on democratic brinkmanship and negotiations. Diplomacy over massive military forces tamed the de-legitimising efforts to alter the governing status quo and the virulence of assertive powers. This was exemplified by the successful claims of Kuwait as part of Iran territory. Even with relative co-operative relations, the issue of dominance of the Persian Gulf persisted between Iran and Iraq. Occasional skirmishes continue to occur between these countries among others such as Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Qatar. The main concern was who was supposed to be the ruling authority and which government had the right to enforce state monopoly within the Gulf i. This paper seeks to examine the threats from the Iranian expansionism in the Arabian Gulf and the effects it has specifically on the on the United Arab Emirates. Threat of Iranian expansionism in the Arabian Gulf The age of empires in the Arabian Gulf, which was featured by Qajar on the Iran side and Ottoman on the Arab side, was too short to have enabled establishment of effective government bureaucracy and symbolic state identity to make it an independent region. National elites came up with new realities following continuous series of chaos. One such reality was that nationalism and states make nations and not the traditionally perceived notion which stated that ‘nations make states and nationalisms’. Due to non-existent national history of the Arabian Gulf, many nations surrounding it tried to fit their own identities and histories into the Gulfii. Iran was at the time considered the potentially hegemonic force by most Arabic countries. This is not because of its powerful military capabilities than others, as Turkey was much more advanced in military forces, but instead it was due to its insistence on a chauvinistic and exclusionary ‘Iranianist’ identity. From the perspective of many Arab nations, the Iranianism concept made Iran appear to be belligerent, making the nation hegemonial, ideological expansionist and fanatical towards cultural, geographical and ethic neighbors. Leaders and politicians in Iran used the Iranianism concept to link up their rule to the ancient, pre-Islamic Persian empires. The notion that Iran was the superior power and could take over the Arabian Gulf was the beginning of misconceptions between Iran and other Arabic states. Iran underwent a radical revolution that ultimately changed its state identity from the conventional monarchic-nationalist system to an Islamic-republican, revolutionary one. The equilibrium norm which had been introduced and sustained by Shah was now replaced by Islamic revisionism which was characterized by populist imagery of a universal struggle against imperialism. The self-attribution of a new state identity was founded on the notion of a ‘unique and true Islamic state’. Enclosed in the Shiite-Islamic and third worldist disclosure, Iran was transformed into a vehicle for romantic revolutionism and was set to fulfill an external obligation of defending the oppressed people round the world. The leader of the revolutionary campaigned and employed the use of millenary struggle which was basically a struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors in order to rally for the revolutionary cause. Therefore, there was not only an emerging struggle between justice and injustice but also between Muslims and non-Muslims. This presented a potential threat in the Arabian Gulf in which Iran was taking over. The constitution also encompassed this ideology. This was reinforced by the preamble which clearly stated the goal of the revolution which was to bring ultimate triumph of the oppressed against the oppressors. Moreover, the constitutions stated that the revolution would be applicable in home and in other nations where Iran was a stakeholderiii. The Islam revolution presented another threat as it rejected most of the international norms of appropriate behavior. For instance in 1979, the US embassy was officially occupied by Muslim student following the Imam depriving the USA embassy, which had operated in the country for over fifty years, its diplomatic immunity. This move symbolized the strict revolution protest against imperialism that was characteristic of the USA through its oppressive hierarchical world order. Conventions of representation and diplomatic immunity were candidates for attack due to the legitimating of the revolution. According to the revolution, its long-terms ideological symbolism and image superseded the short-term benefits that ended as a result of its emergence. This explains why it did not care about losing contact with major superpowers. Although this ongoing struggle to obtain justice from the oppressive superpowers would be considered justifiable, it would out rightly cause detrimental effects to the countries subject to Iran. They would be deterred from the enormous number of advantages that come along with associations with powerful political and economical nations across the globe. Besides that, Iran’s integration of anti-imperialism as part of the Iranian state identity was a clear disposition of the country’s ending membership form Cold War institutions such as Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). This posed as a threat to the membership of the Arabian Gulf states which were now subject to Iran. This disengagement would prove to be quite challenging as the countries would become disoriented from norms that control international affairs forcing them to become passionate advocates of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM). In addition, it would transform their alliance with the United States as well as other powerful nations into an enduring antagonist relationship. Consequently, such nations are labeled as outlawed or rogue and are isolated from the international communityiv. The Islamisation of Iran and the Arabian Gulf opened up channels for communication with receptive political constituencies especially at the sub-state levels such as the Shiite circles in Iraq, Afghanistan, Southern Lebanon and Kuwait who used the revolutionary concept to lobby against marginalization within their national frameworksv. Therefore, the relationship of the Persian Gulf with other Muslim states was not only conducted at the inter-state level but also on the inter-cultural, transnational level. This transnational move collided with the orthodox national-state principle which was key in the international Westphalian system. While the inter-state diplomacy before the revolution had promoted the institution of national sovereignty, internationalism in the new era engendered transgression and negation of international rules. Another notable threat was in relation to rejection of the regional status quo by Islamic Republic of which the Arabic Gulf was an agent. This implied that the states challenged the legitimacy of the leading and most powerful regimes. Nations that embraced the secular-nationalist and monarchic forms of governance, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia, were not compatible with the requirements of the Islamic governance. The Islamic governance actually condemned the monarchic form of governance terming it as disgraceful and most shameful reactionary manifestation. Struggling against monarchic governance became central business for political as well as religious leaders. This implies potential threat of war and contention amongst nations of the Arabian Gulf. The anti-monarchic norm of the Islamic Republic explains the hostile attitude of the ruling elites in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia towards the Arabian Gulf. Introduction of the Islamic governance in the Arabic Gulf was the beginning of the existing form of rule in the Gulf. Iranians and Arabs are deeply intermingled in Iraq than in any other country in the Arabian Gulf. This necessitates the need to integrate other people in a systematic and concerted effort. The first effort which was purportedly unrealistic was to refer to Iran as Persia emphasizing the Persian character of Iran. This created tension among countries of the Arabian Gulf which felt racially discriminated. In a bid to equalize the nations of the Arabic Gulf, Iraq confronted Iran with the intention of renaming the Gulf to Gulf of Basra; it was partially successful. The purpose of renaming the Gulf was to reduce the predominance of Iran in the region and enable a shared dominance of all the Arab states in the Gulf. The dominance of Iran in the Persian Gulf prompted many of the countries in the countries to protest and wage war against it. This was clearly demonstrated by the Iraq which has for many years fought Iran led by the late Saddam Hussein. Effects of Iranian expansionism on United Arab Emirates Defense force Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the UAE seems to be enjoying a favorable strategic position relative to other countries in the Gulf. It faces no threat of debt, immediate threat of invasion or economic collapse. Rivalries in the Emirates have abated and it federal civil society is beginning to appear. The Persian Gulf post crisis has placed the EAU at a better position in terms of creating and maintaining relations with foreign countries away from the Gulf. This is because EAU maintained calm and took a strategic position during the crisis period when the major countries in the Gulf entered into war. The Abu Dhabi police force has been able to maintain good relations with world and regional powers. Nevertheless, EAU has grappled with the same challenges facing its neighbors such as lack of economic diversification, increasing population, volatile oil prices, privatization, low water supplies and independence of foreign labor. In addition, the EAU’s military forces- either alone to together with the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) cannot protect itself from principle security threats from Iran. According to the federation, Iran has illegally occupied Lesser Tunbs, Abu Musa and the Greater island which gives it superiority over the other countries. The Military strength of the UAE is quite outstanding among the Persian Gulf states. It maintains an armed force of about 65,000 men and women with nearly a third being expatriates. However, most of these militants are foreigners as only a small percentage of UAE’s citizens are eligible for military service. A large percentage of the UAE’s military manpower and defense budget come from Abu Dhabi. Since the Iranian expansionism in the Persian Gulf, the political structure of UAE has subsequently changed. The main political structures in its government are led by prominent figures in the armed forces organization. However, there are rivalries within the ruling families and among the Emirates. This was clearly indicated during the Iran-Iraq war whereby Dubai and, Umm al Qawain supported Iran while Ajman and Abu Dhabi backed Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war, the UAE had reverted from taking part in alleviating the situation. This was however, reversed after dialogues with foreign military powers including the US to stop the war and deter its potential overflow to other nations such as Kuwait. UAE supported the mission by fueling military aircrafts that would be used during the operations. Many numbers of UAE troops were also reported to have taken part during the Persian Gulf War as part of the GCC Peninsula Shield force that advanced its operations in Kuwaitvi. Conclusion The Arabic Gulf which is home to several Arabic countries has evidently gone though many history making events in the past. Although the initial years after the British colonists exit were full of good interrelations among the nations, the later years were dominated by constant wars as the greed for dominance of the Persian Gulf took center stage. Iran won the battle as it was considered to the most recognized and powerful identity among the Arabic countries. As Iran took over the Persian Gulf, it underwent radical change for the monarchic form of governance to the Islamic governance a move that was highly opposed by other Gulf states as it went against their own leadership approaches. The major threats that resulted from this kind of governance is that the Persian Gulf got cut off from international affairs and associations which are central to growth and development of any given country. Besides that, the Islamic governance stirred up war among the Arabic states, such as the Iran-Iraq war, as the principles behind it crash greatly with those of the other Arabic states. The United Arab Emirates has reaped positive results from the Persian Gulf crisis. Being on the front line in restoring stability in Iran and Iraq, UAE has created a good reputation in the eyes of global spectators. Its defense force has since gone through radical changes as it is now characterized by more expatriates which enhanced its strength. References Adib-MOghaddam, A 2006, The international politics of the Persian Gulf: A cultural genealogy. New York: Routledge. Ahmad, K 2008, Islands and international politics in the Persian Gulf. Oxon: Routledge. Barzegar, K 2007, Iran, New Iraq and the Persian Gulf political-security architecture. The Iranian journal of international affairs, volume 20, no. 1,pp. 93-110. Rubin, B 2002, Crises in the contemporary Persian Gulf. Oxon: Frank Cass publishers. Read More