The Main Millitary Power in the Gulf - Coursework Example

THE MAIN MILLITARY POWER IN THE GULF College THE MAIN MILLITARY POWER IN THE GULF The question of which Gulf country has themain military control is question that has ignited a great debate. The Gulf countries are Middle East countries bordering the Persian Gulf that include Bahran, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Omar, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Since the early 19th century, the quest for power has been a critical issue as different countries showcase the ability of acquiring strong military capabilities. Since the structuring of the Sykes-Picot agreement in 1915, Iraq was perceived as a strong military power which would develop to be the leader in the Gulf region. However, historical events including then colonial administration in the Gulf, US interest in the Gulf and the Iraq attack have completely changed the situation in the Gulf. Since the Iranian revolution, there has been loads of evidence indicating that Iran has the potential to maintain the security of the Gulf.1 Although the US was believed to have plans to control the Gulf, it was apparent that the US was ready to leave the security role to Iran. From this perspective, it is evident that Iran is the main military power in the Gulf. The history of the Gulf dates back to 1915 when the Sykes-Picot agreement was established between the United Kingdom and France with the assent of Asia. At this time, the Middle East was under the Ottoman Empire and there were rumours that their period would end before the end of the First World War. The Sykes-Picot agreement was meant to define new territories in which the Gulf would be subdivided into new countries.2 Under this agreement, Britain intended to take control areas around the coastal strip between the Sea, River Jordan, Southern Iraq and the other port close to the Mediterranean seas. On the other hand, France was allocated the regions of Turkey, Northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and Russia would take over the other areas. The implication of this agreement was that there would be the establishment of new territories under external influence. Besides, this agreement reversed the earlier agreement that the British government has established with the Arabs, promising them self-rule if they supported them during the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire. The efforts of the British government to initiate control of the Gulf region marked the beginning of the wave of revolution as countries such Iraq started fighting for their liberation from external control. The Sykes-Picot Agreement indicates the initial control of the Persian Gulf and the establishment of new boundaries in the Middle East. The Britain was majorly interested in taking over the Gulf regions as one way of accessing the Oil rich territories in the Middle East.3 Iraq demonstrated its potential as a strong military power after the agreement by developing a war upfront against the British control. Iraq felt that since that the Gulf region was an all Muslim state, the British imperialist leadership was against the principles of Liberation that the country was supposed to pursue. 4They understood the British intentions to take control of the region and to exploit the Gulf countries. However, there is evidence that British was far much stronger than the Iraq due to their strong military power that was advanced. For Iraq, the absence of a strong political structure was a major reason for the weakness of its military framework. However, this marked a period of new rivalry between the British power and Iraq.5 This war continues to persist as Iraq struggles to restore the previous boundaries that existed before the period of Sykes-Picot agreement. The security of the Persian Gulf in the period prior to the Iranian revolution has become an important factor while considering the military strength of different countries. From the moment that Britain took over the Gulf region, it was evident that they would shield the Gulf region as one way of ensuring that they secured their ambitions in the region. At this time, their main threat was the internal as they felt discontentment among members of the Middle East countries would trigger unwanted violence. As expected, the British government received a lot of opposition from the Northern region and the UN was already willing to intervene in the issue and compel British out of the land. The Jewish-Arab war was a major reason for upsurge. Evidently, the British government has already betrayed both Arabs and Jews after providing them with conflicting promises that they would not satisfy. The British Foreign minister had promised the Jews and Arabs that they would assist them in the development of self-ruled territories. However, they failed to obey these promises and decided to take grip of the region and provide security for the coastal region. When the British succumbed to the external pressure, they had to abandon the Gulf region and the US was already expressing their interests in the region. Evidently, it was anticipated that the security role in the Gulf would shift from the British to the US after this change of power. However, the US showed its unwillingness to take over the security in the Gulf region. The US government had already announced their plans to establish the “twin-pillar policy” that would become the main security framework in the region. However, it was apparent that the US was minimally engaged in setting up a security framework in the region. At this time, Iran had demonstrated a strong military ability due to their strong oil resource being a holder of 57% of the world oil trade market. Iran was willing to take responsibility of the Gulf region and to ensure security in the regions that bordered the Coastal region.6 The US government was willing to support Iran to become the policeman in the region. The US main reason was to promote a country that would pursue its interests in the region rather than establishing direct control in the region. Iran, with a lot of wealth and a large population among the Gulf countries was a potential choice for the US administration. On the other hand, Saud Arabia was becoming influential in the region and there was the possibility that the US would go this way. In 1973, Saudi Arabia emerged as an important stakeholder in the global society due to its financial capability. By population and size, Saudi Arabia was second after Iran and it was the second alternative if US decided not to appoint Iran as their security administrator in the Gulf region. At this time, the US, under Carter administration, was more interested in the strong financial power of the Saudi Arabia rather than the military abilities of Iran. However, three issues led to the failure of Saudi Arabia to become the security apparel in the Gulf region7. The US noted that Saudi lacked essential security abilities to guard the region which was faced by both external and internal threats. Secondly, the US felt that since Saudi Arabia had less population than Iran, it would be impossible to control this country and there were chances that Iran would become a potential threat to Saudi Arabia’s security at the Gulf8. Lastly, there was evidence that Riyadh, the leader in Saudi Arabia would refuse such a call by the US. Therefore, the US ruled out the possibility of positioning Saudi Arabia as the Policeman at the Gulf. However, the Saudi Arabia is country that would not be ignored while considering their great financial power prior to the Iranian revolution. Evidently, the country had the potential of acquiring military weapons and assuming high military power which would render Iran weaker. Besides, Saudi Arabia was willing to contribute to the establishment of a diplomatic mission in handling the radical Gulf countries such as Iraq. Their motivation was the need to neutralize radical groups such as Iraq which were becoming a threat for peace within the region. King Faisal of Saudi believed that their financial ability would be under threat if radical groups continued to threaten the economic stability of the region. Therefore, King Faisal became the perfect complement for the Iran security structure in the Gulf region. The US was aware of these strategic abilities of Saudi Arabia and used it as a basis to support their intentions to establish the “twin-pillar policy” within the region9. However, US depended primarily on Iran to provide security within the Gulf region. The close interaction of Iran and US became a strengthening factor for Iran’s Military power. It was a period during which the Iran government acquired a lot of military weapons from the US as part of their strategy to maintain high security at the Gulf region. The US minister established that selling military weapons was advantageous in many ways. First, Iran would have enough strength to suppress any insurgence and hence be a strong security pillar within the region. Since security within the Gulf was an important factor for their economic development, it was essential to equip the country with enough weapons. Secondly, at a time of economic development, the US would make huge profits from selling weapons of war to the Iranian government. The US was interest to profit from Iran oil wealth by selling these weapons to this country10. This exchange further strengthened Iran’s military strength and the country became a powerful nation within the Middle East. Countries such as Saudi Arabia that were potential candidates were no longer a threat to Iran. As historical statistics point out, Iran was the most influential state within the Gulf region followed by Saudi Arabia, which was better versed economically. The relationship between Iran and US was short-lasted as the Iranian revolution brewed in 1979. The Iran citizens felt that the government was becoming corrupt, oppressive, and extravagant. The misappropriation of public resources and the high budgets awarded to loyal families became an issue of interest among the public. Besides, the revolutionists felt that Shah’s regime was under the US control and that their leaders were becoming puppets of the West. The interaction between the country and the west was damaging their culture and there was need to change the direction of the government.11 Meanwhile, the West was already finding a challenge collaborating with Iran when the Shah regime supported the move to increase oil prices. They felt that Iran was pursuing goals that was against their own will, and hence part of the antagonist group. Therefore, the relationship with the West was growing weaker and people felt that compelling the government to reform its policies would liberalize the Iranian population. Consequently, Shah admitted to withdrawal western driven policies and to revise their economic spending. The implication was that the relationship between the West and Iran was collapsing and US had to source for new friends to take over the security at the Gulf. The Iranian revolution was a turning point for the security apparel in the Gulf region as the Saudi and Iraq found Iran as the main radical group.12 Evidently, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia were the most powerful states whose influence in the Gulf region was deeply felt. However, the tri-polar system was marred by political differences due to the existence of differences in their strategies. Before the Iranian revolution, Iraq was isolated due to the believe that it comprised the major threat to the security of the region.13 Saudi had backed up Iran in their security role at the Gulf and had believed that Iran was the most powerful military power that would maintain stability within the region. However, after the Iranian revolution, Saudi Arabia felt that Iran was the major threat and that Iraq was no longer a radical state. Since Iraq also felt that the revolution would be a great threat to the region, they considered the probability of aligning with Saudi Arabia to form a strong ally. However, there was evidence that Iraq was much weaker since their military and financial abilities were much lower compared to both Saudi Arabia and Iraq during that time. The fear of Saudi Arabia and Iran points out to the possible strength that Iran possessed and the fear that the two countries would suffer if Iran rebelled against them. They felt that the country would be a big threat to the two weaker nations. Apparently, both countries would not attack Iran due to their high military strength. In an attempt to form a strong ally, Saudi Arabia decided to support Iraq with resources to make them a stable nation. Evidently, Iraq was unstable and they lacked the financial ability to purchase security apparatus, which made them the weakest in the tri-polar system. Saudi Arabia loaned Iraq about $50 billion donated by Arab States and other logistic resources that would empower them to acquire military power. However, this did not mark the end of their fear and the resorted to form the GCC that comprised of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Oman. Iraq was considered untrustworthy and would not be included in the establishment of the coalition that would secure the Gulf region.14 While the Gulf security seemed to shift to the new coalition, there was evidence that Iran remained to have a strong military control than any other state within the Gulf region. The Gulf War is one of the historical wars that showed the weakness of the Iraq power within the Gulf regions. It was a war of nations against Iraq, after it attacked Kuwait, an act that was criticized by the international community. At this time, Saudi Arabia was a close ally of US and they immediately requested for US military power as soon as Iraq attacked Kuwait. The international communities declared war against Iraq after they refused to heed to the demand of the US that they withdraw from Kuwait before the 15th of January. With Saddam Hussein leading his troops against Kuwait, he exercised a dictatorial power to suppress the small country.15 On the other hand, the US engaged Iraq in a negotiation through the international community and threatened to attack Iraq if they failed to abandon Kuwait. During this time, Saddam Hussein enjoyed a bad reputation of being a dictatorial leader. Besides, the US and the Gulf countries were already on the watch out as they termed Iraq as big threat to the security of the region. Over the world history, Iraq is a country that has always ignited numerous wars against different nations. The Iraq war against Kuwait started shortly after Iraq had given up on its war with Iran. In July 1990, Saddam Hussein gave up on the conflict he had held for a long time with Iran. At this time, Iraq had greatly invested in its military and the country was in an economic crisis. As a matter of fact, Iraq owed Kuwait 30 billion dollars and was unwilling to pay16. To counter the demand of Kuwait that Iraq pays this debt, Saddam Hussein launched a counter claim that Kuwait had cost Iran a great fortune by reducing the price of oil, hurting the business operations in Iraq. Consequently, Saddam Hussein demanded compensation and refused to pay the debt they owed this country. To make matters worse, Saddam Hussein launched claims that he had held earlier that Kuwait is a country that belongs to Iraq. In an effort to control Kuwait, Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to monitor the borders of Kuwait and counter any resistance from the government of this country.17 The feeling of Iraq was that Kuwait being a small country, he could easily capture it to his economic advantage as this country was rich of Oil wells. The action of Saddam Hussein against Kuwait was highly criticized by the international community. Consequently, the international community launched a negotiation plan to reinstate peace in Kuwait and pursue Saddam Hussein to withdraw his army that had already besieged Kuwait. However, Saddam Hussein refused to withdraw his army and refused any negotiations with Kuwait as well as the international community. Iraq felt confident to seize Kuwait and any demands that he withdraw his troops became a source of noise to his ears. To react to the adamancy of Saddam Hussein, the US government declared war against Saddam Hussein and his country if he failed to withdraw his armies by the 15th of 1991. The US government requested the government of Saudi Arabia to allow them set up camps in this country to mitigate any attack from the Iraq.18 765, 000 troops from 28 different countries were stationed in Saudi Arabia and the US commander Schwarzkopf took the role of controlling the troops19. This was his practical plan on how to win the war against Iraq in case they failed to comply with the withdrawal demands. After Saddam Hussein refused to call his troops off bragging about their power, Schwarzkopf launched a strategic attack in Kuwait and in Iraq that saw Saddam’s troops overpowered within a period shorter than 100 hours. The surrender of the Saddam Hussein’s army can be attributed to poor military planning and failure to advocate to democratic leadership. The great involvement of Iraq in this was war was another turning point in the possession of military power within the Gulf region. While this war was a manifestation of the military ability of Iraq, it turned to be the war that undermined their future military abilities.20 At the time of war, there was already evidence that Iraq lacked the ability to fight with a strong country. The country was heavily indebted to both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the country was in verge of getting into a financial crisis. In the war against US troops, Iraq lost thousands of their soldiers, which further weakened their military power. From this perspective, the Iraq attack in Kuwait was a new turning point and the collapse of the tri-polar security system. Iraq was eliminated from the list of most powerful nations in Gulf region21. Whereas they were feared to be a big threat to the security of the region, they were no longer powerful or influential in the region. Further confrontation between US and Iraq completely undermined Iraq’s military abilities. Shortly after the Gulf War in which America successfully defeated Iraq, there emerged rumours that the Iraq government had plans to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. This was a probable effort for Iraq government to strengthen its military power and to become a state with influence in the Gulf region. As this rumour continued to spread, the United Nations Organization reacted by launching a plan to inspect Iraq and confirm whether these allegations were true of just mere speculations.22 In various unsuccessful attempts, the UN negotiated with Iraq over the inspection, but Iraq leader, Saddam Hussein declined this effort and dismissed the allegations as mere speculations. An urge to conduct an investigation in Iraq emerged when the Iraq government attacked US in the year in 2001. The US government felt vulnerable, especially after this attack that is believed to have been an operation of Al-Qaeda, one of the rogue groups in Iraq. The US government felt vulnerable and feared that the Iraq government would use the weapons of mass destruction against the US government. Another fear was that with these weapons available in Iraq, the Al-Qaeda group would access them and conduct a more severe attack than one of 2001.23 Thus, the US felt the need to launch an effective operation to inspect and disarm the Iraq government of any weapons of mass destruction that they could be holding. Although many felt that the rumour on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a mere speculation, the UN team engaged a powerful gear to unravel the truth of the matter. In 2002, the plan of inspection was underway and there was light that the Iraq government would comply with the inspection plan. On the other hand, the US government felt that this process was slow and that there was a need to hasten the process to avoid the looming threat that the weapons would be used against the US.24 In essence, they felt that the UN and the international bodies were slow in neutralizing a threat that would have dire consequences on US. However, the international body insisted that it was important to give Iraq sometime to comply with the demands of the inspection as there was still hope that the process would succeed. Even a number of the US allies accepted that this was not a time of war as there was no any evidence that there was any destructive weapon. Despite the efforts of many countries and international bodies to stop US from engaging Iraq in a war, the US government declared a war in the country and organized their troops to invade Iraq. The US President, Bush, declared that there was a need for a war as the diplomatic process had lasted for long enough. In this light, the US and its allies organized thousands of troops that marched into Iraq and conducted an operation that was meant to recover any weapons of mass destruction and demote Saddam Hussein of his leadership. There is evidence of excessive use of force that lead to the death of about 30 people per day in Iraq and others suffered rape and torture.25 The implication of this was is that both the financial and military abilities of Iraq were reduced and the country suffered from an unstable political structure. Therefore, Saudi Arabia and Iran remained the main military powers within the region. The concept of bipolar has become an increasingly important factor while evaluating the military abilities of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Evidently, Iran and Saudi Arabia have become potential rivals since the Iranian revolution.26 Saudi Arabia’s support for Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war has become a reason for increase in their hatred. Iran felt that Saudi Arabia was no longer supporting their course and that they were part of their rival states27. This was a complete of the scenario that the US government had attempted to reinforce.28 Initially, Iran and Saudi were perceived as the two pillars of the security at the Gulf. The new height of rivalry between the two countries became a point of weakness in the Security at the Gulf. The formation of the GCC was an affirmation of the fear that Saudi Arabia was having during this time. The US was still in the fear that the two countries had equal military power and that they were both possible threats to the region. However, the US trusted Saudi Arabia and the GCC and feared that Iran would be an easy rebel and would hardly implement the western agendas.29 Therefore, they felt that positioning Saudi Arabia at the Gulf would be a better strategy that engaging Iran. The participation of the two countries in the Arab spring has manifested the great difference between the countries. In the protests in Bahrain against the royal family, Saudi Arabia intervened in support of the loyal family to end the protests that would threaten the security in the Gulf region. This has been seen as one occasion when Saudi Arabia has used its military power to advocate for a bureaucratic structure within the region. On the other hand, Iran has contributed to the war by supporting the Bahrain’s Shia majority as part of their support for end of dictatorship. In a different scenario, Iran has supported dictatorship in Syria while Saudi has called for the end of the Al-Assad regime. The confrontation between the two countries has fuelled the hatred between the two regions. Recently, there has been a plot to assassinate the head of state in Saudi, a plot that has been directly linked to Iran.30 At the same time, Saudi has shown aggressive hatred towards Iran and tension persists in the 21st century between the two powerful nations.31 This reflects the great rivalry that exists between the two nations and the potential of a larger war between the two countries in future. The Iran-Saudi hatred has ignited the search for military power for both countries. Iran has been particularly engaged in developing its military power by inventing and purchasing new weapons that will put them at a higher notch than Saudi Arabia. In the recent past, Iran has hatched a plan to develop nuclear weapons that are believed to be weapons of mass destruction. Unlike in the Iraq case, this treaty has received support from Iran’s close allies, which have given them the incentive to proceed with the project. The success of this nuclear weapon project will be a milestone in developing a strong military network and may be attraction for many countries. Although the country has had a bad relationship with the US, there is evidence that the country will attract attention from this country. As expected, the US will initiate friendship with this country as one way of securing its country and maintaining its political influence in the Gulf region.32 Any action that empowers Iran will be a great loss for Saudi Arabia owing to the sour relationship that exists between them. Although it is unlikely that the two countries will have a direct confrontation, it is possible that the two would take different sides if a war with Kuwait ensues. Therefore, Iran’s nuclear power project is a big threat for the military power of Saudi Arabia. The strategic friendship between the two countries and super power nations in the recent past has become an important source of military abilities. Saudi Arabia has particularly won favour from the US in various occasions in times of war. A good example is the quick response of the US during the Iraq attack in Kuwait.33 This implies that Saudi Arabia has an upper hand due to its friendship with US, one of the strongest military infrastructures in the international arena.34 On the other hand, Europe has established close friendship with Iran and continues to trade actively with this country. The country imports the largest portion of oil from Iran and their support for the country continues to be stronger. At the same time, Iran has established friendship with Russia in the current century, which is a major supplier of weapons in the country.35 From a close observation both countries have strong military supports from international allies, which implies greater military potential during a time of war. In conclusion, Iran is the main military power within the Gulf region as observed from the strong military it has had in the region. Evidently, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have been the main military power in the Gulf region prior to the Iranian revolution. The US demonstrated a lot of trust in Iran’s military by positioning them as the Watchdog in the Gulf region. Although Saudi Arabia demonstrated a lot of financial power, they lacked the military essential to provide security in the Gulf region. As a matter of fact, Saudi Arabia backed up Iran as the main security apparel in the region. However, there Iranian revolution was a turning point to the history of the country as Iran became the main security threat in the region and became an apparent enemy of Saudi Arabia. The support of Saudi Arabia to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war was a signal for growing tension between the two countries. However, the Iraq influence in the region has considerably reduced owing to its antagonistic wars with US, which have further weakened their military structure. Although there is the idea that Saudi and Iran are in a status quo, there is evidence that Iran still has a higher military potential and they have an upper hand in terms of military strength in the Gulf region. Bibliography Afary, J, and Kevin, A. Foucault and the Iranian revolution: Gender and the seductions of Islamism. University of Chicago Press, 2010. Al Kindi, A,. Arabian Gulf Security. Army War Coll Carlisle Barracks Pa, 2003. Art, R. J., & Waltz, K. N.. The use of force: military power and international politics. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield. 2003 Askari, Hossein. Conflicts in the Persian Gulf: Origins and Evolution. , 2013. Broomhall, B, International justice and the International Criminal Court (2 ed.) Oxford University Press. 2007. p. 46 Burnette, A, & Kraemer, W. The rhetoric of imperial righteousness in a post-9/11 world, Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1, 2, 2012. p. 143. Burton, F., & Katz, S. M. Under fire: the untold story of the attack in Benghazi. New York: St. Martin press, 2013. Cordesman, A. H., & Davies, E. R. Iraqs insurgency and the road to civil conflict. Westport, Connecticut, Praeger Security International, 2008. Davis, B. L. Qaddafi, terrorism, and the origins of the U.S. attack on Libya. New York, Praeger. 1990. Dana M., W, & Suzanne R., S n.d., Americans and Iraq, twelve years apart: Comparing support for the US wars in Iraq, The Social Science Journal, 2014. Duggan, SE, Redefining the Relationship: Reclaiming American Public Diplomacy from the US Military in Iraq, Middle East Journal, 66, 1, 2012. pp. 53-78. Finlan, Al, The Gulf War of 1991, New York City, New York: Rosen Publishing. 2008. Freedman, R. Soviet policy toward Israel under Gorbachev. New York, Praeger. 2001. Harland, M, Democratic vanguardism: Francis Fukuyama and the Bush Doctrine, Arena Journal, 39/40, p. 51, Informit Literature & Culture Collection, 2013. Hendrickson, C. Clinton’s Military Strikes in 1998: Diversionary Uses of Force Armed, Forces & Society, vol. 28, 2002. pp. 309–332 Markaz, D, Gulf Security in the Twenty-First Century. I.B. Tauris, 2002. Noyes, H, The clouded lens: Persian Gulf security and US policy. Hoover Press, 1979. Rathmell, A, Theodore W. Karasik, and David C. Gompert. "A New Persian Gulf Security System." 2003. Scales, R, & Brown, S, US Policy In Afghanistan And Iraq : Lessons And Legacies, 2012. Schell, J, The Iraq Disaster, Nation, 296, 13, pp. 3-8, Academic Search Premier, 2013. Thomas, W. 2000, The ethics of destruction: norms and force in international relations. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Yetiv, S, America and the Persian Gulf: The Third Party Dimension in World Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995. Read More