Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography Persian Gulf

1. Israel and the Persian Gulf: A Source of Security or Conflict?

Author:
Steven Simon
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
• In the current geopolitical context, the Abraham Accords, which normalized Israel’s relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain during the final months of the Trump administration, could prove destabilizing by lowering the bar for Israeli military action against Iran.1 • The destabilizing potential of the Abraham Accords will increase if talks to revive the Iran nuclear agreement collapse. This, in turn, suggests that revival of the accord, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, remains important for U.S. security and regional stability. • By securing the JCPOA and supporting diplomacy between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. maximizes the viability and utility of the Abraham Accords as well as their compatibility with a new and more inclusive regional security architecture. But supporting only the Abraham Accords without reentering the JCPOA and encouraging multilateral dialogue among the Arab Gulf states and Iran could transform the accords from a potential strategic asset to a liability.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Conflict, and Regional Integration
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Persian Gulf

2. An easy target? Types of attack on oil tankers by state actors

Author:
Maciej Hacaga
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Security and Defence Quarterly
Institution:
War Studies University
Abstract:
There was a huge reaction to the attacks that took place in the Gulf of Oman in May and June 2019 but, in fact, attacks on oil tankers are a century old problem. Oil tankers appear to be easy targets because of their size and cargo. The main objective of this paper is to analyse the effectiveness of different types of attack on oil tankers that have been undertaken since widespread use of oil began. A comparative case-study approach was adopted to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of attack on oil tankers over the long-term, namely the last century. It briefly reviews the destructiveness of three anti-tanker campaigns during the two World Wars. They are subsequently compared with two post-1945 sets of attacks in the Persian Gulf region – the Tanker War of the 1980s and the 2019 attacks. The scale of damages inflicted by attacks on oil tankers is varied. The experience of both World Wars shows their effectiveness. However, post-1945 events do not provide confirmatory evidence. The main difference is the scale of hostile activities. It is not the characteristics of tankers that make them easy targets but political conditions (war/peace state of international system) that enable the application of weapons and tactics that bring about a different scale of destruction.
Topic:
Security, Oil, International Security, History, Maritime, Economic Security, and Energy
Political Geography:
Persian Gulf

3. Britain’s Post-Colonial Foreign Policy Towards the Persian Gulf Security (1971-1991): An Alternative Approach

Author:
Esra Cavusoglu
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies
Institution:
Sakarya University (SAU)
Abstract:
British withdrawal from the Persian Gulf in 1971, started a new era in the region with new political order and new security map. Iran and Saudi Arabia emerged as the guardians of the status quo to be filling the power vacuum left by the British in behalf of the West. Britain adopted a new post-imperial role in the region along with new post-colonial foreign policy in the post-withdrawal context. British policy towards the regional security is analysed in this article with central focus on the shift emerged in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution in the British policy. After 1979, Iran, no longer a Western ally, has been defined as the major internal threat for the regional security following the major external threat of the Soviet expansion in the British foreign policy. This paper argues that the shift in the British policy came along with a sectarianist approach towards the region. The sectarianization emerged with the securitization of the Gulf based on “Iran threat” within the determinants of the Anglo-American alliance on the regional security. The sectarianist discourse adopted by the British foreign policy was employed as an effective tool of the securitization of the Gulf that was deepened during the regional conflicts, the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, and Sectarianism
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Iran, Middle East, and Persian Gulf

4. Rejuvenating the U.S. Partnership with Kuwait

Author:
Hardin Lang, Alia Awadallah, and John Craig
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
For more than a quarter century, Kuwait has served as a key strategic partner for the United States in the Middle East. It hosts more than 15,000 U.S. military personnel, leads the Middle East in providing humanitarian assistance, and plays an important diplomatic role in the region. The country is also home to the Gulf’s only elected parliament. In recent years, however, Kuwait has experienced an unusual degree of political, economic, and social turbulence that has led some to question the long-term viability of its domestic power-sharing arrangements.1 Beginning in 2011, Kuwait was rocked by the aftershocks of the Arab uprisings; the collapse of oil prices; and a public struggle over the royal line of succession. Most recently, the emir dissolved the legislature in October 2016 and announced snap elections after members of parliament disrupted the government’s austerity agenda.2 Those elections returned opposition parliamentarians in force to the National Assembly.3 Tensions between the government and the opposition continue to rise, but they do not yet pose a serious challenge to Kuwait’s long-term stability or the U.S.-Kuwaiti bilateral relationship.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Bilateral Relations, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Kuwait, North America, Persian Gulf, and United States of America

5. Imagining a New Security Order in the Persian Gulf

Author:
Richard Sokolsky and Frederic M. Wehrey
Publication Date:
10-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
For over three decades, the question of who controls the Persian Gulf has formed the basis for America’s massive military buildup in the region. At the heart of the region’s security dilemma is a clash of visions: Iran seeks the departure of U.S. forces so it can exert what it sees as its rightful authority over the region, while the Gulf Arab states want the United States to balance Iranian power. Resolving this impasse will not be easy. But the Iranian nuclear agreement presents an opportunity to take a first step toward creating a new security order in the Gulf, one that could improve relations between Iran and the Gulf Arab states and facilitate a lessening of the U.S. military commitment. Read more at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/10/14/imagining-new-security-order-in-persian-gulf/ij3p
Topic:
Security, Politics, Treaties and Agreements, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
United States and Persian Gulf

6. Beyond Camp David: A Gradualist Strategy to Upgrade the US-Gulf Security Partnership

Author:
Bilal Y. Saab and Barry Pavel
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
President Barack Obama's summit meeting with Gulf leaders at Camp David on May 14 will end in failure if the administration does not propose a substantial upgrade in US-Gulf security relations that is as bold and strategically significant as the nuclear agreement–and likely formal deal–with Iran. While the summit will not suddenly eliminate mistrust and resolve all differences, it presents an historic opportunity to put back on track a decades-old US-Gulf partnership that has served both sides and the region well, yet lately has experienced deep turbulence. Failure to strengthen these ties will have consequences, the most dramatic of which could be the acceleration of the regional order's collapse. In a March 2015 Atlantic Council report entitled Artful Balance: Future US Defense Strategy and Force Posture in the Gulf, we made the case for a mutual defense treaty between the United States and willing Arab Gulf partners. In this issue in focus, we offer a more comprehensive and detailed assessment of the risks, concerns, benefits, and opportunities that would be inherent in such a treaty. We recommend a gradualist approach for significantly upgrading US-Gulf security relations that effectively reduces the risks and maximizes the benefits of more formal US security commitments to willing Arab Gulf states.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Iran and Persian Gulf

7. The Gulf Cooperation Council's Unified Military Command

Author:
Brahim Saidy
Publication Date:
10-2014
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Abstract:
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which brings together the countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, took an unprecedented step during its 34th Summit (held in Kuwait City on December 10-11 2013) by setting up a unified military command structure for its member states. This move reflects the commitment of the GCC to establish a credible joint defense force able to advance the goal of collective security in the region. This military command will have a force of around 100,000, half of which would be contributed by Saudi Arabia, the main advocate of this initiative. GCC members will coordinate air, land, and marine forces under one common structure. In this regard, Bahrain’s Foreign Minister, Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa, has stated: “We want to create a central command that coordinates between all sub-commands and makes them work under one umbrella. But, the new structure [the Unified Military Command] won’t replace the Peninsula Shield forces.”[1] In terms of collective defense, the core purposes of this command structure are to provide strategic and operational command for all GCC missions and prepare members for operational employment as interoperable multinational forces. This command is expected to have a minimum number of operational commands (land, air and maritime command) as well as joint intelligence system and integrated missile defense in order to execute essential operational and peacetime missions. The challenge for this plan is to be able to undertake command and control of the full range of the military missions, including command and control multinational and multiservice forces, but more importantly to be able to support operations under the political and strategic direction of the GCC. This means that the main goal is not limited to improving coordination between different parts of existing national defense systems, but rather to establishing a real joint operational command structure. The progress towards a fully integrated defense system would allow the GCC to become a real military alliance along the lines of NATO.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Economics, and Politics
Political Geography:
Saudi Arabia, Persian Gulf, and Gulf Cooperation Council