• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
09.02.2012

DEVELOPMENTS AROUND IRAN

   

Artashes Ter-Harutyunyan

Though in prior years, tension around Iran – intensifying and weakening, was not considered to be unusual, over the recent period it can be observed that the developments concerning the Southern neigbour of Armenia has changed their character. They have become extraordinarily aggressive as compared with the prior years, and this allows consuming that the situation around Iran is changing.

On the one hand if that aggression is conditioned by the pressure imposed by the US and its European and Middle East allies, then two points can be distinguished as the goals of that pressure:

  • in short-term prospects to compel Iran to make as many concessions on the crucial regional issues as possible;
  • in long-term prospects to weaken the ruling regime in Iran.

Situational observation

The session of the EU Foreign Affairs Council which took place on January 23 in Brussels took a decision to prohibit all the EU member countries to import oil from Iran.

Let us mention that according to the latest data, Iran sells 2.3 million barrels of oil everyday, 450 thousand barrels of which are bought by the EU member countries, mainly by Spain, Greece and Italy.

Taking into consideration the fact that the European countries are going to buy Saudi and Russian oil instead of the Iranian, and on the other hand the United States are continuing exerting pressure on other countries which have broad trade and economic relations with Tehran in order to make them refuse from the Iranian oil and suspend all the financial operations with the Iranian banks, Tehran may really face a problem of selling its oil on international market.

It is not a secret that oil is the first income item for the Iranian regime and on this item the social and economic stability in country is mainly dependant1. It is not a mere chance that in last December when the intentions of the EU (to ban import of oil from Iran) has become public, the Iranian party initiated immensely tough manoeuvres (Velayat-90) which had lasted for 9 days and covered huge territory – from the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Arab Sea and Aden Gulf. During those manoeuvres the first vice-president of Iran Mohamad Reza Rahimi stated that that if the sanctions concerning the Iranian oil came into power, the armed forced of the Islamic Republic would close the Strait of Hormuz through which about 40% of world oil transportation is taking place2.

It is characteristic that during “Vilayat-90” manoeuvres they practiced blocking the Strait of Hormuz. During those manoeuvres Iran also tested new long-range missiles which can strike targets in Israel as well as deliver strikes on the American military bases in the Middle East. Further to all the aforementioned the commander of the naval forces of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution Ali Fadavi stated that the Iranian navy would arrange new manoeuvres in February in the district of the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States responded to the steps taken by Iran. At first the Pentagon stated that the presence of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf corresponded to the international laws and Washington did not intend to withdraw its Navy from the region. Soon, on January 8, it became clear that in addition to the “John Stannis” aircraft carrier and other naval vessels accompanying it, the United States brought up to the Gulf another group of naval vessels leaded by “Carl Winson” aircraft carrier. Besides, the Pentagon sent from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean the third group of war-craft ships leaded by “Abraham Lincoln” aircraft carrier. France also brought up a group of war-craft ships leaded by “Charles de Gaulle” aircraft carrier. Several British naval vessels also were sent to the Gulf.

On January 8 the US Secretary of Defence Leon Paneta made s statement, mentioning that closing of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran would be taken by Washington as “crossing red line”. Three days before Paneta’s statement, the Minister of Defence of Great Britain Philip Hammond made even tougher statement saying that if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, the United Kingdom would initiate military actions in order to re-open it. But even more remarkable was the publication in The New York Times which was later confirmed by the Iranian sources: according to them the US president Barak Obama sent a letter to the supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, thus cautioning him from closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Threats and counterthreats between Washington, its allies and Iran are nothing new but this time the difference is that they are accompanied by such a demonstration of the military forces and tough statements on the highest level. On the other hand the situation is constrained by the issue which caused that constraint, i.e. the Iranian oil. As it was mentioned selling oil is of vital importance for the Iranian regime. They realize it in the United States and European countries either and the fact that in previous years they did not touch the Iranian oil was a kind of indicator that the external pressure on Iran was of situational character. Now the situation is changing and the decision of the European countries to stop buying oil from Iran means that the policy of the US and the European powers towards Iran has changed its character which is the indicator of the situation changing.

Changing of the situation is also proved by the developments round the nuclear programme of Iran and the aggravation of the Iranian-Israeli confrontation which can be observed over the recent period.

Against the background of the tension around the Iranian oil and Strait of Hormuz, on January 8 Tehran stated that the underground uranium enrichment plant started working near Fordo population centre, not far from the city of Kum3. The head of the Iranian Nuclear Agency Fereydun Abasi added that the plant can enrich uranium up to 20%. It is remarkable that this step by Tehran was condemned not only by the United States, Great Britain, France and Italy, but also by Russia.

In two days the Israeli mass media wrote, making reference to the special services of their countries that this year Tehran planned to blow up at one of its underground objects one kiloton bomb just like in Northern Korea in 2006. It is remarkable that on the same day (January 10) The Times published the report recently spread by Institute for National Security Studies working under the Tel Aviv University; according to that report in 2012 Israel should be ready to face nuclear Iran.

Just in several days, on January 18 the former head of the Israeli intelligence service, Major General Amos Yadlin stated that Iran possessed all the technologies and materials necessary for the creation of the weapon and it was just a matter of the political decision.

On the next day the Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Iranian leadership took a decision to create nuclear weapon. The fact that two days before the statement was made Netanyahu cancelled Austere Challenge 12 joint American-Israeli manoeuvres, which were planned on April and which should have been the biggest in the history deserves special attention. According to both American and Israeli sources this is the way Tel Aviv wants to express its discontent with the approach of Washington to the Iranian issue; currently Washington is against usage of military force against the Islamic Republic. Here it is important that Tel Aviv resorts to such strict measures from the point of view of the American-Israeli relations which taking into consideration the situation around Iran should be the evidence of super-importance of the issue or of the so-called high stakes.

Conclusions

The process is not finished yet and the issue is in what way the developments will go after the aforementioned decision of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the EU.

Of course many things depend on Iran’s response. However any step taken by any of the parties, in fact, will be of temporal character as the logic of the developments is not directed to the detente.

On the other hand the developments around Syria are important. According to many international experts, one of the aims of the pressure of the US and its allies exerted on Iran is to compel it to make concessions. The fall of al-Assad’s regime in Syria may seriously affect Iran’s positions in the region. The pressure on Damascus is rising and one should wait and see what Tehran will offer to its Syrian ally.

1 According to the western expert evaluations, today Iran receives about 2/3 of its national revenue from selling gas.

2 In addition to that statement the Head of the Iranian General Staff Major General Ataola Selehi and Iran’s Minister of Defence Ahmad Vahidi stated, correspondingly on January 3 and 4, that the United States should withdraw its naval forces from the Persian Gulf as the countries of the region were capable of providing the security of the Gulf by their own means.

3 In response to the American threats Iran is moving its nuclear objects underground.


Return
Another materials of author