What Is the UK After In the Waters of the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean?

The series of events in the “a tanker for a tanker war” between Iran and the West in the Strait of Hormuz, the most important strategic part of the Persian Gulf, has been watched by the world’s leading politicians, political scientists and media for several weeks now. Analyses of the reasons, changes in the positions of the parties involved, their short-term and long-term goals and objectives, scenarios of withdrawing from the tense situation are very ambiguous. Some saw in it the aspiration of Washington to wreak havoc in this region, since it is easier “to catch a goldfish” in the muddy water. Others understand it as the desire to found a coalition for establishing new (anti-Iranian) rules of navigation and to pin down the obstinate Iran with various sanctions.

At first (before B. Johnson’s election as Prime Minister), a cunning trap laid by US for London with the purpose to show the UK its place was considered, as the latter showed some independence at a decidedly unsuitable time for its own political change and attempted to carry out the Brexit as soon as possible, etc.

It would be undesirable to repeat the unexpected and drastic turns of events: they are already abundant on the pages of all serious media worldwide. On the one hand, it is probably worth taking a broader look at them, as they certainly will have long-term effects for the whole world because of a possible “oil deficit” and a changed strategic arrangement of forces in the region. And, on the other hand, one had better focus on analyzing the role and attitude of Britain, which, for some reason or other, became one of the centers of the conflict. In our opinion, it needs to be made, considering several important circumstances.

First, in the course of events which started with the US threats to begin military operations against Iran, the Pentagon’s fighting spirit disappeared. The US plan to send 120,000 soldiers to Iran seemed unfeasible since they would be met by more than 650,000 soldiers of the Iranian armed forces. This despite the fact that, in 2018, the Pentagon designed the document OPLAN 1002-18 on capturing a number of ports in the Persian Gulf and the Khuzestan Province where 80% of the Iranian oil and gas reserves are located and where separatist sentiment is strong. It is essential that this province is close to the partially controlled Iraq, not far from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which contains the possible countermeasures of Iran, but also makes those 120,000 troops sufficient for such action in case of possible support of the aircraft and the fleet from the bases of these adjacent countries.

Secondly, for the purpose of ensuring a greater reliability of its actions, the USCENTCOM designed the multinational naval operation Sentinel, and the US Administration officially urged Germany, France and the UK to join the naval mission for “ensuring safe navigation” through the Strait of Hormuz and “countering Iran’s aggression.”

Germany rejected this request: it has to be approved by the Parliament first. Almost all leading political forces of the country are against participating in any missions of the US against Iran. Germany is not really interested in the events in the flashpoints, since its energy security does not depend on the disputes with Iran, as it receives most of its oil from the Russian Federation or from other suppliers who do not transport it through this strait.

France is somewhat hesitant concerning participation in the initiative of the US. However, since France receives most of its oil from the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia is its largest supplier), it is in its best interests that the situation in the region should not be tense.

The UK, more than any other state, is inclined to partake in the US mission, since Iran held a British tanker, and Saudi Arabia is the main supplier of aviation fuel to the country. Without having sufficient forces in the Persian Gulf, the UK, it would seem, would support the US cause. But this purpose required the rise of the still mysterious and unpredictable Boris Johnson as the country’s Prime Minister.

Thirdly, soon after he was appointed Prime Minister, B. Johnson abandoned T. May’s doubts and, on August 5 of this year, the accession to the alliance with Washington was officially declared on the one hand. And on the other, probably, in order to strengthen the positions within the country and in the world in general, he was the first to present the idea to create a European naval coalition for ensuring the security of vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. The idea was then approved by France, the Netherlands and Italy, interest was expressed by Spain, Sweden, Poland and even Germany. It was decided that the ships of the UK Naval Forces would accompany cargo vessels under the British flag in the Strait of Hormuz and, for this purpose, the destroyer Duncan already entered the waters of the Persian Gulf.

Fourthly, the Russian Federation MFA made a number of proposals for strengthening the security in the region. In particular, establishing the Organization for Security and Cooperation which would include the Persian Gulf States, Russia, China, the US, the EU, India, etc.; compliance of the regional participants with international law; transparent cooperation in the military sphere; taking steps on transforming the region into an area without weapons of mass destruction; abandoning permanent foreign bases and gradual reduction of the military presence of the non-regional players. It is possible to establish a collective security system by carrying out consultations on a bilateral and multilateral basis, including those with the participation of the League of Arab States and the UN.

Fifthly, it is necessary to keep in mind that the UK had, has and will have  its own interests and positions both in the Persian Gulf, and in its vicinity, in the Indian Ocean. It is necessary to acknowledge that, before the 2010s, there was practically no mention of the Indian Ocean region, or the Indian Ocean Rim (the regional structure of cooperation, IORA for short) during the debates of the British parliament. However, according to the plans unveiled at the end of 2014, the UK announced placing large military platforms, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, other support ships, planes of the Royal Naval Force and the Royal Air Force on the modernized base Mina Salman in Bahrain (the necessary sum of $23 million for expanding its operation opportunities was provided by both parties). The then Minister of Foreign Affairs Philip Hammond emphasized that this measure was designed to stabilize the situation in the Persian Gulf and to protect the British interests in Libya and the neighboring areas. In our opinion, it marked the beginning of London’s gradual return to the east from the Suez Canal.

During Theresa May’s time as Prime Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth adopted the slogan “Global Britain” with 3 priorities of interests around the world:

• North America, especially the US and Canada;
• Europe with allies and partners;
• Asia, a center of economic and political growth, maintaining the influence in which will become the key success factor of the slogan.

If the UK returns to the east from the Suez Canal, to Asia, then it has to be done by sea, through the Indian Ocean where, according to the forecasts made by the Asian Development Bank, the growth in the Asian Age directed by China, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Thailand will reach 90% of the Asian GDP and 53% of the global GDP. This will certainly become the drive of a global economic spurt as well. It is indicative that the next two decades will see an enormous increase in the volume of container transportation both in the Indian Ocean and in the Asia Pacific Region. The UK, seeking to reserve its title of a trade empire, will hardly miss such opportunities.

Apart from its economic interests, the UK, for its own purposes, obviously wants to meet the new strategic challenges and risks by an increasingly active participation in securing the trade waterways, establishing order on the sea by carrying out joint maneuvers, including the South China Sea, its possible accession to the Big 4 v. 2.0 and the IORA and strengthening its role in the Indo-Pacific Region (which is underway) in general. It would seem that the events in the Strait of Hormuz, the initiatives on their resolution and the desire to look more self-sufficient could urge the British interest in the region of the Indian Ocean and the Indo-Pacific Region. However, whether or not it will be able to realize them on its own (without its main ally, the US) with an ambitious yet unpredictable Prime Minister is a big question. It is no accident that London recently held a thorough discussion of the insufficient level of the military budget (2%), the Naval Force profile, the merchant fleet, etc., which has on numerous occasions been noted by the New Eastern Outlook. It seems that there are problems requiring debate in the new government and in the Parliament.

Meanwhile, on August 5, the British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab wielded the Big Stick again, stating that he intended to create another (stronger) alliance for ensuring the international law and order and for meeting the British security challenges. Raab believes that the new alliance would become the answer to “the menacing behavior of Iran and the destabilizing actions of Russia in Europe,” and its member states would counter both “terrorism and climate change,” among other things.

However, is the British stick big enough? Or is the British rhetoric as strong as always?

Nina Lebedeva, Candidate of Historical Sciences, leading research fellow at the Centre of Indian Research, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oriental Studies, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Multipolar World on Iran’s Side

 Viktor Mikhin

Many people in the West are gradually beginning to understand that the days of the unipolar world are numbered, a unipolar world the United States has been recklessly dominating for the past number of years, using nothing but brute force and military conflict in an attempt to impose its world order on other countries. New superpowers are coming to the forefront, whose aim is to strengthen world peace and to protect the legitimate right all people have to live according to their own national laws and customs, without interfering in other countries’ affairs. This is particularly visible in the Persian Gulf amid the so-called “Persian Gulf crisis”.

It initially looked as if reason had prevailed when the five permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as Germany signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which gradually began to normalize the situation in the region. But then Donald Trump not only withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, but also imposed fierce sanctions against Iran and the Iranian people, who value their independence. By imposing sanctions against Iran, the US has made it clear that it wants to “make the whole world bend to its will” – the Russian Foreign Ministry commented. “This is being done in order to deprive Iran of export revenue and to undermine the Iranian economy, because the United States has long been dissatisfied with Tehran’s independent policy, one reason being the fact that it prevents Americans from being able to feel like they fully dominate the strategically important region that is the Middle East,” the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry. In 2019, Iran responded by announcing it would suspend implementing two parts of the deal, and after that point the world seems to have begun moving towards armed conflict at an alarming pace.

But the world has changed, and a number of countries have taken urgent steps to stabilize the situation. French, German and UK Foreign Ministers have announced the creation of INSTEX, a new mechanism for facilitating legitimate trade with Iran. INSTEX will initially focus on delivering medicine, medical devices and agri-food goods to Iran. The decision to create a mechanism to facilitate trade with Iran that bypasses US sanctions was taken in order to establish normal trade relations with Tehran.

Moreover, European NATO member states were very skeptical about the US-led initiative to establish a joint international naval mission, which is meant to protect the shipping interests of the West in the Strait of Hormuz. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas made a statement which clearly expresses this skepticism: “Germany will not take part in the naval mission proposed and planned by the United States.” US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell expressed his frustration, declaring he was “outraged” by Angela Merkel’s policy, as the German Chancellor had said Berlin did not intend to join the US mission in the Strait of Hormuz. In response to the decision Maas had announced, Grenell rudely barged in on Germany’s affairs and made a dogmatic statement, saying that “Germany is the biggest economic power in Europe. This success brings global responsibilities.” From what the American Ambassador has said, it is clear that he still sees Germany as an American protectorate, not an independent state, where American troops are still stationed.

“The presence of foreign forces does not only not contribute to the security of the region, but also will be the main cause of regional tensions,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said at a meeting with Oman’s Foreign Minister in Tehran. Recalling the fact that Iran and Oman bear most of the responsibility to ensure security in the Strait of Hormuz, President Rouhani added: “Iran has been, and will be, the main guardian of security and freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman during history.”  At the same time, noting Iran has never and will never start a war, Rouhani made it clear that the current tension in the region stems from America’s unilateral rejection of the JCPOA and the illusion of the Trump administration. During this meeting, Oman’s Foreign Minister Yusuf Bin Alawi Bin Abdullah, in turn, described relations between Iran and Oman as “friendly and brotherly”, adding: “Today, the region is experiencing fabricated and proxy crises, and the establishment of sustainable security in the region will definitely not be possible without Iran’s involvement.”

In this regard, Iran and Russia are planning to begin carrying out joint naval exercises in the near future, Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi told IRNA (The Islamic Republic News Agency). According to Khanzadi, these joint naval exercises may take place in the northern part of the Indian Ocean, and in the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman. The US media reported these plans, which they say have really frightened members of the Trump administration, because the news came as a big surprise, and now Washington simply does not know how to respond to these plans. The French newspaper Le Monde explicitly reported that conducting these naval exercises would spoil the whole game plan for Donald Trump and his team.

Against this background, Iran has begun taking a tougher stance against the United States and its leadership. One event which stands out is when Tehran bluntly turned down an offer from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to visit Iran and speak to the Iranian people. Pompeo appears to have become obsessed with the withered “laurels” of the notorious former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who visited Kiev’s Maidan Square back in the day, and handed out cookies to local residents. Ordinary people in Kiev did not understand the gesture, and thought that the Americans would later reward them with a million dollars for each cookie they took. They are still waiting for that reward.

Even close US allies – the Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE – are feeling the negative consequences of US sanctions, as the Gulf tanker crisis and threat to the freedom of navigation have led to a hike in insurance costs for their ships and cargo. Another threat to the oil market in the Persian Gulf is that countries in Asia such as China, India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, are already looking for alternatives, because they are afraid their oil supply will be disrupted if war breaks out and the Strait of Hormuz is closes. On top of all this, there is a significant outflow of investment from the Gulf countries, whose economies are partly dependent on the financial services of other States. According to US bankers from JP Morgan, Saudi Arabia lost $80 billion in investments last year, and the shares of the Persian Gulf countries plummeted, which had previously been highly valued by the financial market.

Many people around the world are right to believe that unqualified sanctions against Iran are a moral, political and legal failure on the part of the United States. Imposing sanctions against Iran means that the United States has failed to fulfill its obligations to international institutions, one of them being the United Nations. Everyone loses here – Europe suffers a setback, as does Iran and the whole world, Washington has brought the world to the brink of war, to both political and economic stagnation.

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”