[Myra MacDonald, Defeat is an Orphan. How Pakistan Lost the Great South Asia War. Penguin. London, 2016. 313 p.]

RESEÑA / Ramón Barba

Podría pensarse que el libro de Myra McDonald más bien confunde al lector, por cuanto el título habla de una Gran Guerra en el subcontinente indio de la que como tal no existe constancia. En realidad, la obra ayuda a entender –especialmente al lector occidental, más alejado del marco cultural e histórico de esa parte del mundo– la complejidad de las relaciones entre India y Pakistán. Corresponsal de Reuters durante más de treinta años, con larga experiencia en la región, McDonald sabe sumar datos concretos, sin quedarse en la anécdota, e ir rápidamente a la fuerza de fondo que hay detrás de ellos.

Su tesis es que desde que nacieron los dos Estados con la partición de la Joya de la Corona, al deshacerse el Imperio Británico, paquistaníes e indios han protagonizado una larga confrontación, que incluso ha tenido sus momentos de fuego real. Ha sido una prolongada y enconada enemistad entre los dos países, con sus esporádicas batallas: una Gran Guerra, según la autora, que finalmente Pakistán ha perdido.

Por lo general, mientras que India ha buscado su afirmación nacional en el ejercicio de la democracia, Pakistán ha basado su idiosincrasia nacional en el Islam y en el conflicto con India, el cual tiene en la disputa por el control de Cachemira su manifestación más sangrienta. Esa fijación con India, de acuerdo con McDonald, ha llevado a Islamabad a valerse del apoyo a grupos yihadistas para crear inestabilidad al otro lado de la línea de partición, hundiéndose el propio Pakistán en un abismo del que por ahora no ha conseguido salir. McDonald sigue una argumentación generalmente objetiva, pero el libro parece estar escrito desde India, sin apenas simpatía por los paquistaníes.

El relato arranca con el episodio del secuestro del avión de Indian Airlines que tuvo lugar entre Nochebuena y Nochevieja de 1999 por parte de cinco guerrilleros cachemires, con 155 personas a bordo, y que supuso un serio conflicto entre Islamabad y Nueva Delhi, al interpretar el Gobierno indio que la operación había contado con cierto respaldo del país vecino. El episodio sirve para describir los dramáticos estándares de la pugna estratégica entre los dos países, que el año anterior culminaron su desarrollo de la bomba atómica.

El libro presta especial atención a esa carrera por lograr el arma nuclear –los indios porque los chinos la tenían, los paquistaníes porque veían que los indios la estaban alcanzando– y que venía a plantear una duda clave de la proliferación nuclear: ¿cabe el uso de las armas a menor escala entre dos países mortalmente enemigos cuando ambos disponen de la bomba atómica? Se ha visto que sí, y no solo eso, argumenta McDonald: la falta de miedo de Pakistán a un ataque indio nuclear, dado que este se ve disuadido por el propio arsenal paquistaní, habría hecho que Islamabad se viera más confiada a la hora de alentar ataques terroristas contra India.

A principios de la década de 1960 la situación en India era un tanto delicada: en 1964 China había detonado la bomba atómica, lo cual aunado a la presión paquistaní en Cachemira ponía a la mayor democracia del mundo en una complicada coyuntura. Ello dio lugar al lanzamiento por parte de India del Smiling Buddha en 1974 (como bomba sin carga) y al inicio de una estrecha competición con Pakistán por entrar en el reducido club nuclear, como consecuencia de la lógica dialéctica que entonces regía su relación. Aunque se creía que la bomba podía estar en el haber de una de las partes, no fue hasta las tardías detonaciones de 1998 que ello quedó patente.

La autora considera que los dos países llegaron ese año en un nivel muy parejo: India, más grande, tenía que solventar pequeñas crisis internas para poder avanzar, mientras que Pakistán gozaba de cierta estabilidad. No obstante, la consecución de la bomba atómica hizo que Pakistán, tras una mala lectura de la realidad, no supiese aprovechar sus oportunidades en la etapa de la globalización que entonces se abría, y se quedase estancado en una lógica belicista, mientras India daba el estirón que le ha hecho ganar un indudable peso como potencia mundial. Esa es la “derrota” paquistaní de la que habla el título de la obra.

Además de esa atención a las décadas más recientes, el texto también se retrotrae a 1947, cuando nacieron ambos estados independientes, para explicar muchas de las dinámicas de la subsiguiente relación entre ambos. Asimismo se abordan las relaciones con China, aliada de Pakistán, y con Estados Unidos, que tuvo más cercanía de intereses con Pakistán y ahora es más próximo a India.

In its ten operational years the “Dome” has shown effectiveness, but a comprehensive political regional solution is needed

In 2011 Israel deployed its “Iron Dome” mobile defense system in response to the rocket attacks it suffered the previous years from Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas). The Israel Defense Force claims that the system has shown an 85% – 90% success rate. However, it offers mixed results when other considerations are taken into account. Its temporary mitigation of the menaces of the rocket attacks could distract Israelis in seeking out a comprehensive political regional solution; possibly a solution that could make systems like the “Iron Dome” unnecessary. 

▲ How “Iron Dome” works; explanation on an image produced by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems

ARTICLE / Ann M. Callahan

The “Iron Dome” is a mobile defense system developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries developed, produced and fielded in 2011 to respond to the security threat posed by the bombings of rockets and projectiles shot into Israel, many of which landed in heavily populated areas.

Bombings into Israel intensified during the 2006 Second Lebanon War when Hezbollah​ fired approximately 4,000 rockets from bases in the south of Lebanon. From Gaza to the South, an estimated 8,000 projectiles were launched between 2000 and 2008, mostly by Hamas​​. To counter these threats, the Defense Ministry, in February 2007, decided on the development of the “Dome” to function as a mobile air defense system for Israel. After its period of development and testing, the system was declared operational and fielded in March 2011.

The system is the pivotal lower tier of a triad of systems in Israel’s air defense system.

The “David’s Sling” system covers the middle layer, while the “Arrow” missile system protects Israel from long-range projectiles.

The Iron Dome functions by detecting, analyzing and intercepting varieties of targets such as mortars, rockets, and artillery. It has all-weather capabilities and is able to function night or day and in all conditions, including fog, rain, dust storms and low clouds. It is able to launch a variety of interceptor missiles. 

Israel is protected by 10 “Iron Dome” batteries, functioning to protect the country’s infrastructure and citizens. Each battery is able to defend up to 60 square miles. They are strategically placed around Israel’s cities in order to intercept projectiles headed towards these populated areas. Implementing artificial intelligence technology, the “Dome” system is able to discriminate whether the incoming threats will land in a populated or in an uninhabited area, ignoring them in the latter case, consequently reducing the cost of operation and keeping unnecessary defensive launches to a minimum. However, if the “Dome” determines that the rocket is projected to land in an inhabited area, the interceptor is fired towards the rocket.

A radar steers the missile until the target is acquired with an infrared sensor. The interceptor must be quickly maneuverable because it must intercept rudimentary rockets that are little more than a pipe with fins welded onto it, which makes them liable to follow unpredictable courses. It can be assumed that the launchers of the rockets know as little as the Israelis as to where the rockets would end up landing.

Effectiveness

The IDF (Israel Defense Force) claims an 85% - 90% success rate for the “Iron Dome” in intercepting incoming projectiles. Operational in March 2011, to date the “Iron Dome” has successfully destroyed approximately 1,500 rockets. The destruction of these incoming rockets has saved Israeli lives offering physical protection and shielding property and other assets. In addition, for the Israelis it serves as a psychological safeguard and comfort for the Israeli people. 

Regarding the “Dome” as an asset for Israel’s National Security Strategy, while standing as an undeniable asset, has had mixed results regarding its four major pillars of Deterrence, Early, Active Defense and Decisive Victory as well as some unintended challenges. 

For instance, regarding the perspective of its psychological protection for the Israeli people, it is thought to also effect Israeli public in a negative manner. Regardless of the fact that it currently offers effective protection to the existing threats it could, in fact, help cause a long-term security issue for Israel. Its temporary mitigation of the menaces of the rocket attacks could distract Israelis in seeking out a comprehensive political regional solution; possibly a solution that could make systems like the “Iron Dome” unnecessary. 

In addition, while the “Dome” suffices for now, it cannot be expected to continue this way forever. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is just a matter of time before the militants develop tactics or acquire the technology to overcome it. The time needed in order to accomplish this can be predicted to be significantly reduced taking into account the strong support from the militant’s allies and the considerable funding they receive.  

Still a comprehensive diplomatic solution is needed

Today, the world’s militaries of both state and non-state actors are engaged in a technological arms race. As is clearly known, Israel’s technological dominance is indisputable. Nevertheless, it, by no means, stands as a guarantee as destructive technology becomes more accessible and less expensive. As new technologies become more available they are subject to replication, imitation and increased affordability. As technologies develop and are implemented in operations, counter techniques can shift and new tactics can be developed, which is what the militias are only bound to do. Moreover, with the heavy funding available to the militias from their wealthy allies, acquiring more advanced technologies becomes more probable. This is a significant disadvantage for Israel. In order to preserve their upper hand, constant innovation and adaptation is a necessity. 

The confusion between the short-term military advantage the technology of the “Dome” offers and the long-term necessity for a comprehensive and original political, diplomatic solution is seen as a risk for Israel. Indeed, Amir Peretz, a minister in Israel’s cabinet, told the Washington​ Post in 2014 that the “Iron Dome” stands as nothing more than a “stopgap measure” and that “in the end, the only thing that will bring true quite is a diplomatic solution.”

Despite these drawbacks, however, in all the positive aspects that the system offers clearly outweighs the negative. The “Iron Dome” stands undeniably as a critical and outstanding military asset to Israel's National Security, even while Israel works to address and mitigate some of the unforeseen challenges related to the system.

▲ Qasem Soleimani recibe una condecoración de manos del Líder Supremo iraní, Ali Khamenei, a comienzos de 2019 [Oficina de Khamenei]

COMENTARIO* / Salvador Sánchez Tapia

La muerte en Irak del general Qasem Soleimani, jefe de la fuerza iraní Quds, a manos de un dron norteamericano es un eslabón más en el proceso de creciente deterioro de las, ya de por sí malas, relaciones entre Estados Unidos e Irán, cuyo último capítulo se vive desde 2018, año en que el presidente Trump decide romper el denominado “acuerdo nuclear” (JCPOA) suscrito con Irán en 2015 por la administración Obama y los demás miembros del G 5+1.

El ataque sobre Soleimani, ejecutado como represalia por la muerte de un contratista norteamericano en un ataque lanzado, al parecer, por la milicia irakí chiíta Kataib Hezbollah sobre la base K1 de los Estados Unidos en Kirkuk el pasado 27 de diciembre, ha supuesto un cambio cualitativo en el tipo de respuesta que Estados Unidos acostumbran a dar a incidentes de este tipo pues, por primera vez, el objetivo ha sido un alto responsable militar de la República Islámica de Irán.

Inmediatamente después del asesinato, durante las exequias por el general fallecido, Ali Khamenei, líder supremo de Irán, anunció en términos un tanto apocalípticos que el ataque no quedaría sin respuesta, y que esta vendría directamente de manos iraníes, no a través de proxies. Ésta llegó, en efecto, la noche del pasado 8 de enero en forma de un ataque masivo con misiles sobre dos bases militares estadounidenses situadas al oeste de Irak y en el Kurdistán iraquí. Contradiciendo declaraciones iraníes que hablaban de que los bombardeos habrían producido unos ochenta muertos norteamericanos, la administración estadounidense se apresuró a asegurar que no se había registrado ninguna baja por los ataques.

Tras este nuevo ataque, el mundo contuvo la respiración esperando una escalada por parte de Washington. Sin embargo, las declaraciones del presidente Trump del propio 8 de enero parecieron rebajar la tensión con el argumento de que la ausencia de bajas norteamericanas era indicativa de un intento iraní de desescalar. Estados Unidos no responderá militarmente, aunque anunció la intención de endurecer el régimen de sanciones económicas hasta que el país cambie de actitud. Con ello, el riesgo de una guerra abierta en la región parece conjurado, al menos momentáneamente.

¿Nos afecta la tensión entre Estados Unidos e Irán?

Evidentemente, sí, y de varias formas. En primer lugar, no podemos obviar que varios países de Europa, entre los que se encuentra España, mantienen importantes contingentes militares desplegados en la región, operando en los marcos de la OTAN, de las Naciones Unidas y de la Unión Europea en misiones como “Inherent Resolve” en Irak, “Resolute Support” en Afganistán, UNIFIL en Líbano, “Active Fence” en Turquía, o “Atalanta” en la zona del Cuerno de África.

En los casos de Irak y Afganistán en particular, las tropas españolas desplegadas en las misiones antes mencionadas trabajan en estrecha colaboración con otros aliados de la OTAN, entre los que se encuentra Estados Unidos. Aunque en principio los soldados españoles –o, para el caso, los de las otras naciones OTAN– no están en el punto de mira de las respuestas iraníes, dirigidas específicamente contra Norteamérica y sus intereses, no cabe duda de que cualquier ataque de Irán sobre unidades estadounidenses podría afectar de forma colateral a los contingentes de otras naciones operando con ellas, aunque sólo sea por una cuestión de mera proximidad geográfica.

Menos probable es que Irán intentara una respuesta contra algún contingente no norteamericano a través de alguno de sus proxies en la región. Este sería el caso, por ejemplo, de Hezbollá en Líbano, país en el que España mantiene un importante contingente cuya seguridad podría verse afectada si este grupo, bien por iniciativa propia, o a instancias de Irán, intentara atacar a alguna unidad o instalación de UNIFIL. Esta opción, como decimos, es considerada como poco probable por el impacto negativo que tendría sobre la comunidad internacional en general, y por la proximidad a Israel del despliegue de UNIFIL.

La escalada ha producido un incremento del nivel de alerta y un refuerzo de las tropas que Estados Unidos mantiene en la región. Si el incremento de la tensión continuara, no sería descartable que Washington llegara a articular algún tipo de respuesta militar directa sobre Irán para la que podría apelar al apoyo de sus socios y aliados, sea con tropas o con recursos. Es difícil determinar en qué momento y condiciones se podría producir tal solicitud, con qué objeto y, muy importante, qué respuesta daría Europa a la misma, teniendo en cuenta la preocupación con que el Viejo Continente observa una escalada en la que no está interesada, y el estado de relativa frialdad que atraviesan las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y Europa.

Como consecuencia del asesinato, Irán ha hecho pública su intención de desvincularse totalmente de las cláusulas del acuerdo nuclear que aún observaba. En otras palabras, manifiesta sentirse libre para continuar con su programa nuclear. Indudablemente, este último clavo en el ataúd del JCPOA puede desembocar en una abierta carrera nuclear en la región con consecuencias negativas para la seguridad regional, pero también para la europea. El aumento del número de potencias nucleares es, por sí mismo y desde nuestro punto de vista, una mala noticia.

Por último, y como efecto secundario de la escalada, el precio del barril de petróleo comienza a mostrar una inquietante tendencia alcista. Si no hay medidas correctoras por la vía del incremento de producción de otros países, la tendencia podría mantenerse. No es necesario abundar en lo que el aumento del precio del petróleo significa para la economía europea y, desde luego, para la nacional.

Rusia y China en la crisis

Rusia está haciendo esfuerzos para reemplazar a Estados Unidos como la principal potencia en la región y para presentar a Norteamérica como un socio poco fiable, que abandona a sus aliados en dificultades. La escalada de la crisis puede tener un impacto negativo en ese esfuerzo, retardándolo o, en el peor de los casos, terminando con él si, finalmente, Estados Unidos llegara a revertir su política de paulatino abandono de Oriente Medio por mor de un aumento de la tensión con Irán. La retórica rusa será contraria a Washington. A la postre, sin embargo, no hará nada para que la tensión entre Estados Unidos e Irán aumente y sí, probablemente, para que se mantenga dentro de un nivel tolerable o disminuya.

Rusia no es tanto un aliado incondicional de Irán, como uno de conveniencia. Irán es un competidor de Rusia por influencia en la región –en particular, en Siria–, y puede intentar influir negativamente sobre el islamismo de la Federación Rusa. Por otro lado, Rusia no está entusiasmada con la idea de que Irán se dote de armas nucleares.

La postura de China está condicionada por su gran dependencia del flujo estable de petróleo de Oriente Medio. Por este motivo, no tiene ningún interés en la inestabilidad que acarrea este incremento de la tensión. Previsiblemente actuará como un elemento moderador, tratando de utilizar la crisis como una oportunidad para incrementar su influencia en la región. China no está interesada per se en convertirse en árbitro de la seguridad en la región, pero sí está interesada en una región estable, amigable para el comercio.

El proyecto “One Belt, One Road” es otra de las razones por las que China tratará de mantener la crisis dentro de unos límites asumibles. Oriente Medio es un elemento clave en el proyecto chino de recreación de una suerte de nueva Ruta de la Seda. Una guerra abierta entre USA e Irán podría afectar negativamente a este proyecto.

En resumen, ni Rusia ni China están interesados en una escalada entre Estados Unidos e Irán que pueda desembocar en una guerra abierta entre ambas naciones que ponga en peligro el suministro de petróleo, en el caso de China, y el asentamiento como principal potencia internacional en la región, en el caso de Rusia. Ambos tratarán de atemperar la respuesta iraní, incluso si, a nivel de declaraciones, se manifiestan en contra del asesinato de Soleimani.

* Este texto alarga un comentario previo realizado por el autor a El Confidencial Digital.

[Michael E. O´Hanlon, The Senkaku Paradox: Risking Great Power War over Small Stakes. Brookings Institution Press. Washington, 2019. 272 p.]

RESEÑA / Jimena Puga

Tras el fin de la Guerra Fría, en la que confrontó al bloque de la Unión Soviética defendiendo los valores del orden occidental, Estados Unidos quedó en el mundo como el país hegemónico. En la actualidad, sin embargo, se ve rivalizado por Rusia, que a pesar de su débil economía lucha por no perder más influencia en la escena internacional, y por China, que aunque todavía potencia regional aspira a sustituir a Estados Unidos en el pináculo mundial. El reto no es solo para Washington, sino para todo Occidente, pues sus mismos valores se ven cuestionados por el avance de la agenda de Moscú y Pekín.

Occidente tiene que responder de manera firme, pero ¿hasta dónde debe llegar? ¿Cuándo debe decir basta? ¿Está dispuesto a una guerra aunque los pasos acumulativos que dé Rusia o China sean en sí mismos relativamente menores o bien ocurran en la periferia? Es lo que se plantea Michael E. O´Hanlon, investigador de Brookings Institution, en The Senkaku Paradox: Risking Great Power War over Small Stakes. El libro aborda una serie de posibles escenarios en el contexto de un cambio hegemónico mundial y la competición entre las principales potencias mundiales por el poder.

Los escenarios planteados por O´Hanlon consisten, por un lado, en una posible anexión de Estonia o Letonia por parte de Rusia, sin previo consentimiento y mediante un ataque militar. Y, por otro, la conquista militar por parte de China de una de las islas más grandes que conforman las Senkaku, nombre que da Japón a un archipiélago que administra en las proximidades de Taiwán y que Pekín denomina Diaoyu. En ambos casos, es difícil evaluar qué bando contaría con una mejor estrategia militar o predecir cuál de los dos ganaría una hipotética guerra. Además, existen muchas variables no conocidas acerca de las vulnerabilidades cibernéticas, las operaciones submarinas o la precisión de los ataques con misiles a infraestructuras estratégicas de cada país.

Así, el autor se pregunta si tanto Estados Unidos como sus aliados deberían responder directamente con una ofensiva militar, como respuesta a un ataque inicial, o si tendrían que limitarse a dar una respuesta asimétrica, centrada en prevenir ataques futuros, combinando dichas respuestas con represalias económicas y determinadas acciones militares en distintos escenarios. Lo que está claro es que al tiempo que se mantienen vigilantes ante la posible necesidad de reforzar sus posiciones en el tablero internacional, los países occidentales deben mantener la prudencia y dar respuestas proporcionadas a posibles crisis, conscientes de que sus valores –la defensa de la libertad, de la justicia y del bien común–, son las mayores ventajas de sus sistemas democráticos.

En la actualidad, los sistemas democráticos occidentales se encuentran bajo una fuerte presión populista, si bien nada hace pensar que países con democracias muy consolidadas como la francesa, la alemana o la española vayan a generar conflictos entre ellos, mucho menos en el ámbito de la Unión Europea, que es garantía de paz y de estabilidad desde la década de 1950. Por su parte, sería recomendable que la Administración Trump reaccionara con mayor prudencia en ciertas situaciones, para evitar una escalada de tensión diplomática que innecesariamente aumente los riesgos de conflicto, cuando menos regional o económico.

Ni Moscú ni Pekín suponen hoy una amenaza inmediata para la hegemonía mundial estadounidense, pero China es la potencia con el crecimiento más rápido de los últimos cincuenta años. Un crecimiento tan veloz pude llegar a hacer que China prescinda del multilateralismo y la cooperación regional y que la influencia regional la lleve a cabo por la vía de la imposición económica o militar. Eso convertiría a la República Popular en una amenaza.

Aunque es cierto que Estados Unidos cuenta con la mejor fuerza militar, se prevé que alrededor del año 2040 exista una paridad tanto militar como económica entre el Imperio del Centro y el país americano. Así pues, Europa y Estados Unidos, ante una posible agresión de China –o de Rusia, a pesar de su estado de declive gradual– deberían dar una respuesta adecuada y, como dice la Casa Blanca, ser “estratégicamente predecibles, pero operacionalmente impredecibles”. Y todo ello buscan do aliados a nivel internacional y presionando militarmente al agresor en regiones comprometidas para este.

Como defiende el autor, la Casa Blanca necesita opciones mejores y más creíbles para diseñar una defensa asimétrica basada en planes de disuasión y contención, que cuenten con el uso de la fuerza como opción. Por ejemplo, el artículo 5 del Tratado del Atlántico Norte no es la mejor arma de disuasión para EEUU y sus aliados, ya que supone un peligro para la estabilidad y no deja margen de actuación en el caso de que falle la disuasión. No obstante, con el nuevo tipo de defensa que se propone, los países miembros de la OTAN no estarían obligados a “disparar la primera bala”, por lo que cabrían otras acciones colaterales, sin necesidad de recurrir a un enfrentamiento directo para frenar una posible escalada de hostilidades más serias.

Lo que está claro, argumenta O´Hanlon, es que tanto China como Rusia buscan desafiar el orden internacional mediante cualquier tipo de conflicto y Occidente debe adoptar estrategias encaminadas a prever los posibles escenarios futuros, de manera que puedan estar preparados para afrontarlos con garantías de éxito. Estas medidas no tienen por qué ser solo militares. Por ejemplo, deberán prepararse para una larga y dolorosa guerra económica por medio de medidas defensivas y ofensivas, al tiempo que EEUU frena la imposición de aranceles sobre el aluminio y el acero a sus aliados. Además, EEUU tiene que tener cuidado a la hora de utilizar en exceso las sanciones económicas aplicadas a las transacciones financieras, especialmente la prohibición de acceso al código SWIFT del sistema de comunicación bancaria, porque si no, los países aliados de Washington acabarán por crear alternativas al SWIFT, lo cual supondría una desventaja y una muestra de debilidad frente a Moscú y Pekín.

[Sheila A. Smith, Japan Rearmed. The Politics of Military Power. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, 2019. 239 p.]

RESEÑA / Ignacio Yárnoz

En la actualidad Japón se enfrenta a una situación de seguridad nacional delicada. Por el norte, el país se ve constantemente sometido a los acosos de la República Popular Democrática de Corea en forma de ensayos con misiles balísticos que a menudo aterrizan en aguas territoriales japonesas. Por el este y sudeste, la soberanía de Japón en sus aguas territoriales, incluyendo las disputadas Islas Senkaku, se ve amenazada por una China cada vez con más interés por mostrar músculo económico y militar.

Y por si esto fuera poco, Japón ya pone en tela de juicio la seguridad que Estados Unidos pueda o quiera proporcionarle ante un eventual conflicto regional. Si en el pasado Japón temía ser arrastrado a una guerra a causa de la predisposición estadounidense al uso de fuego para resolver ciertas situaciones, ahora lo que Tokio teme es que Estados Unidos no le acompañe a la hora de defender su soberanía.

Ese dilema de seguridad nacional es el que aborda Japan Rearmed. The Politics of Military Power, de Sheila A. Smith, investigadora del Council on Foreign Relations de Estados Unidos. El libro recoge las diferentes visiones en torno a esta cuestión. La postura del gobierno nipón es que Japón debería confiar más en sí mismo de cara a mantener su propia seguridad. Pero es aquí donde surge el mayor obstáculo. Desde su derrota en la Segunda Guerra Mundial y posterior dominio estadounidense del país hasta 1952, las Fuerzas Armadas nacionales han estado rebajadas a “Fuerzas de Autodefensa”. La realidad es que la Constitución de 1947, específicamente su artículo número 9, sigue limitando las funciones de las tropas niponas.

Introducido directamente por el mando estadounidense, el artículo 9, nunca enmendado, dice: “Aspirando sinceramente a una paz internacional basada en la justicia y el orden, el pueblo japonés renuncia para siempre a la guerra como derecho soberano de la nación y a la amenaza o al uso de la fuerza como medio de solución en disputas internacionales. (2) Con el objeto de llevar a cabo el deseo expresado en el párrafo precedente, no se mantendrán en lo sucesivo fuerzas de tierra, mar o aire como tampoco otro potencial bélico. El derecho de beligerancia del estado no será reconocido”.

Este artículo, novedoso en la época, pretendía abrir una era a salvo de tendencias belicistas, en la que el proyecto de Naciones Unidas sería la base para la seguridad colectiva y la solución pacífica de controversias. Sin embargo, la propia historia demostró cómo en cuestión de pocos años los propios arquitectos de dicha Constitución llamaron al rearme de Japón en el contexto de la Guerra de Corea; entonces era ya demasiado tarde para un replanteamiento de las limitaciones fundacionales del nuevo Japón.

Tras los cambios en la geopolítica de Asia en los últimos 30 años después del fin de la Guerra Fría, Japón ha dado pasos para recobrar su presencia internacional, pero aún hoy sigue tropezando con el encorsetamiento de su Constitución. Como bien describe Smith, son muchos los obstáculos legales que las Fuerzas de Autodefensa de Japón han tenido que superar desde 1945. Temas como la actuación de Japón en el exterior bajo bandera de Naciones Unidas, su ausencia en la 1ª Guerra del Golfo, el debate sobre la capacidad de resiliencia tras un ataque de Corea del Norte o la actuación de Japón en la 2ª Guerra del Golfo son todos discutidos y analizados en este libro. Además de esto, la autora trata de explicar las razones y argumentos en cada uno de los debates concernientes al artículo 9, tales como la legítima defensa, el rol de las Fuerzas de Autodefensa y la relación con Estados Unidos, asuntos que enfrentan a la elite política nipona. Son ya varias las generaciones de líderes políticos que han intentado resolver el dilema de garantizar la seguridad e intereses de Japón sin limitar las capacidades de sus fuerzas armadas, aunque hasta ahora no ha existido un consenso para cambiar ciertos presupuestos constitucionales, dirección en la que está empujando el primer ministro Shinzo Abe.

Japan rearmed es un análisis en 360 grados donde el lector encuentra un completo análisis sobre los obstáculos principales a los que se enfrentan las Fuerzas de Autodefensa de Japón y sobre cuál puede ser su desarrollo futuro. En un marco más amplio, el libro también afronta el rol de las Fuerzas Armadas en una democracia, la cual debe hacer compatible su rechazo a la violencia con la obligación de garantizar la defensa colectiva.

[Glen E. Howard and Matthew Czekaj (Editors), Russia’s military strategy and doctrine. The Jamestown Foundation. Washington DC, 2019. 444 pages]

REVIEW / Angel Martos Sáez

This exemplar acts as an answer and a guide for Western policymakers to the quandary that 21st century Russia is posing in the international arena. Western leaders, after the annexation of Crimea in February-March 2014 and the subsequent invasion of Eastern Ukraine, are struggling to come up with a definition of the aggressive strategy that Vladimir Putin’s Russia is carrying out. Non-linear warfare, limited war, or “hybrid warfare” are some of the terms coined to give a name to Russia’s operations below the threshold of war.

The work is divided in three sections. The first one focuses on the “geographic vectors of Russia’s strategy”. The authors here study the six main geographical areas in which a clear pattern has been recognized along Russia’s operations: The Middle East, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Arctic, the Far East and the Baltic Sea.

The chapter studying Russia’s strategy towards the Middle East is heavily focused on the Syrian Civil War. Russian post-USSR foreign-policymakers have realized how precious political stability in the Levant is for safeguarding their geostrategic interests. Access to warm waters of the Mediterranean or Black Sea through the Turkish straits are of key relevance, as well as securing the Tartus naval base, although to a lesser extent. A brilliant Russian military analyst, Pavel Felgenhauer, famous for his predictions about how Russia would go to war against Georgia for Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008, takes us deep into the gist of Putin’s will to keep good relations with Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Fighting at the same time Islamic terrorism and other Western-supported insurgent militias.

The Black and Mediterranean Seas areas are covered by a retired admiral of the Ukranian Navy, Ihor Kabanenko. These two regions are merged together in one chapter because gaining access to the Ocean through warm waters is the priority for Russian leaders, be it through their “internal lake” as they like to call the Black Sea, or the Mediterranean alone. The author focuses heavily on the planning that the Federation has followed, starting with the occupation of Crimea to the utilization of area denial weaponry (A2/AD) to restrict access to the areas.

The third chapter concerning the Russia’s guideline followed in the Arctic and the Far East is far more pessimistic than the formers. Pavel K. Baev stresses the crucial mistakes that the country has done in militarizing the Northern Sea Route region to monopolize the natural resource exploitation. This tool, however, has worked as a boomerang making it harder for Russia nowadays to make profit around this area. Regarding the Far East and its main threats (North Korea and China), Russia was expected a more mature stance towards these nuclear powers, other than trying to align its interests to theirs and loosing several opportunities of taking economical advantage of their projects.

Swedish defense ministry advisor Jörgen Elfving points out that the BSR (acronym for Baltic Sea Region) is of crucial relevance for Russia. The Federation’s strategy is mainly based on the prevention, through all the means possible, of Sweden and Finland joining the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO). Putin has stressed out several times his mistrust on this organization, stating that Western policymakers haven’t kept the promise of not extending the Alliance further Eastwards than the former German Democratic Republic’s Western border. Although Russia has the military capabilities, another de facto invasion is not likely to be seen in the BSR, not even in the Baltic republics. Instead, public diplomacy campaigns towards shifting foreign public perception of Russia, the funding of Eurosceptic political parties, and most importantly taking advantage of the commercial ties (oil and natural gas) between Scandinavian countries, the Baltic republics and Russia is far more likely (and already happening).

The second section of this book continues with the task of defining precisely and enumerating the non-conventional elements that are used to carry out the strategy and doctrine followed by Russia. Jānis Bērziņš gives body to the “New Generation Warfare” doctrine, according to him a more exact term than “hybrid” warfare. The author stresses out the conscience that Russian leaders have of being the “weak party” in their war with NATO, and how they therefore work on aligning  “the minds of the peoples” (the public opinion) to their goals in order to overcome the handicap they have. An “asymmetric warfare” under the threshold of total war is always preferred by them.

Chapters six and seven go deep into the nuclear weaponry that Russia might possess, its history, and how it shapes the country’s policy, strategy, and doctrine. There is a reference to the turbulent years in which Gorbachev and Reagan signed several Non-Proliferation Treaties to avoid total destruction, influenced by the MAD doctrine of the time. It also studies the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (IMF) Treaty and how current leaders of both countries (Presidents Trump and Putin) are withdrawing from the treaty amid non-compliance of one another. Event that has sparked past strategic tensions between the two powers.

Russian researcher Sergey Sukhankin gives us an insight on the Federation’s use of information security, tracing the current customs and methods back to the Soviet times, since according to him not much has changed in Russian practices. Using data in an unscrupulously malevolent way doesn’t suppose a problem for Russian current policymakers, he says. So much so that it is usually hard for “the West” to predict what Russia is going to do next, or what cyberattack it is going to perpetrate.

To conclude, the third section covers the lessons learned and the domestic implications that have followed Russia’s adventures in foreign conflicts, such as the one in Ukraine (mainly in Donbas) and in Syria. The involvement in each one is different since the parties which the Kremlin supported are opposed in essence: Moscow fought for subversion in Eastern Ukraine but for governmental stability in Syria. Russian military expert Roger N. McDermott and analyst Dima Adamsky give us a brief synthesis of what experiences Russian policymakers have gained after these events in Chapters nine and eleven.

The last chapter wraps up all the research talking about the concept of mass mobilization and how it has returned to the Federation’s politics, both domestically and in the foreign arena. Although we don’t exactly know if the majority of the national people supports this stance, it is clear that this country is showing the world that it is ready for war in this 21st century.  And this manual is here to be a reference for US and NATO defense strategists, to help overcome the military and security challenges that the Russian Federation is posing to the international community.

Algunos diplomáticos de EEUU y Canadá que estuvieron La Habana entre 2016 y 2018 siguen sin recuperarse del todo de las dolencias sufridas

▲ Edificio de la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Cuba [Departamento de Estado]

ANÁLISIS / Eduardo Villa Corta

Hace tres años, personal diplomático de Estados Unidos destinado en Cuba comenzó a sentir molestias físicas supuestamente causadas por unos extraños sonidos a los que al parecer habían estado expuestos; Washington habló de un ˝ataque sónico˝. Sin embargo, si bien han podido determinarse como anómalos los síntomas padecidos por los afectados, no se ha logrado establecer lo que los provocó. ¿Fue realmente un ataque? ¿Quién estaría detrás? Repasamos aquí las principales hipótesis y conjeturas que se han realizado, y señalamos sus puntos débiles.

A finales de 2016 y principios de 2017 diversos diplomáticos estadounidenses con destino en La Habana, así como miembros de sus familias, reportaron sufrir mareos, vértigos y dolores agudos en los oídos que podían estar causados por unos extraños sonidos a los que habían estado expuestos. Según sus testimonios, los sonidos provenían de una dirección específica, y los habían escuchado en sus propias residencias o, en algunos casos, en habitaciones de hotel, mientras que las personas alojadas en casas vecinas o habitaciones contiguas no habían oído ningún sonido especial. El fenómeno también afectó a diplomáticos canadienses en la capital cubana. En total, unas cuarenta personas fueron atendidas por esos síntomas.

Ataque acústico

Haciéndose eco de los hechos reportados por su personal en Cuba, a mediados de 2017 el Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos declaró que los síntomas podrían haber sido causados por un ataque sónico del gobierno cubano dirigido contra los diplomáticos y sus familias. En octubre de 2017, el presidente Donald Trump acusó directamente a La Habana: “Yo creo que Cuba es responsable; sí, lo creo”.

A comienzos de 2018 el Departamento de Estado emitió un comunicado de alerta para no viajar a Cuba debido a una posible crisis sanitaria y retiró a buena parte del personal de la misión diplomática de La Habana, reduciendo la actividad de esta al mínimo posible. Hasta ese momento un total de 24 estadounidenses se habían visto afectados.

Por entonces también el Gobierno canadiense indicó que diplomáticos suyos habían experimentado molestias similares. Ottawa decidió evacuar a las familias de sus empleados en Cuba y a comienzos de 2019 procedió a reducir el personal de la embajada ante lo que parecía ser la aparición de un decimocuarto caso.

El Gobierno cubano negó desde el primer momento estar implicado en ninguna operación de acoso contra EEUU o Canadá. ˝No hay ninguna prueba sobre la causa de las dolencias reportadas, ni tampoco hay pruebas que sugieran que esos problemas de salud hayan sido causados por un ataque de ningún tipo˝, aseguró La Habana. El Gobierno de Raúl Castro ofreció su cooperación en la investigación de los hechos, sin que saliera a la luz nada que pudiera explicar el caso. No aparecieron dispositivos que pudieran haber provocado los sonidos.

Agregando confusión a la situación, al menos dos diplomáticos estadounidenses destinados en China, ocupados en el consulado general de Guangzhou, el más grande que EEUU tiene en el país, presentaron a comienzos de 2018 también los síntomas ya descritos. Washington los evacuó y publicó una advertencia sanitaria sobre las misiones en la región continental de China.

La agencia Associated Press publicó en octubre 2017 una grabación de los supuestos sonidos causantes de la dolencia reportada, e indicó que las agencias gubernamentales habían sido incapaces de determinar la naturaleza del ruido y de explicar su relación con los trastornos corporales provocados. Meses después apuntó que los informes internos del FBI no establecían siquiera que hubiera habido un “ataque”. Otros medios destacaron la escasa cooperación en la investigación, por cuestiones de celo jurisdiccional, entre el Departamento de Estado, el FBI y la CIA.

Síntomas del “síndrome de la Habana”

Un equipo médico de la Universidad de Pensilvania, a petición del Gobierno estadounidense, examinó a 21 personas afectadas por lo que la prensa comenzó a llamar “síndrome de la Habana”. La investigación, publicada inicialmente en marzo de 2018 en el Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), indicó que la mayoría de los pacientes reportaba problemas de memoria, concentración y equilibrio, y determinó que parecían haber sufrido heridas en extensas redes cerebrales.

Datos posteriores del mismo equipo ampliados a 40 pacientes, dados a conocer en julio de 2019, condujeron a la conclusión de que los diplomáticos habían experimentado un cierto traumatismo craneoencefálico. Los resultados de las resonancias magnéticas, comparados con los de un grupo de personas sanas, permitía advertir diferencias en el volumen de las sustancias blanca y gris del cerebro, en la integridad de las microestructuras del cerebelo y en la conectividad funcional relativas a las subredes para la audición y la visión espacial, si bien no para las funciones ejecutivas.

Este informe concluyó que el personal diplomático había sido herido físicamente, aunque no pudo determinar la causa. También destacó que los pacientes no experimentan una recuperación usual, pues no se están recuperando rápidamente de los síntomas, como ocurre en otros casos de similares “contusiones” o problemas de oído.

SI NO FUE UN ATAQUE, ¿QUÉ FUE?

Al no haberse podido establecer una causa clara de lo que provocó los males padecidos por el personal diplomático de EEUU y Canadá y algunos miembros de sus familias, la misma realidad de un ataque ha sido puesto en cuestión. Aunque se han dado diversas explicaciones alternativas, sin embargo ninguna de ellas resulta plenamente convincente.

1) Histeria colectiva

Formulación. Algunos neurólogos y sociólogos, como Robert Bartholomew, han sugerido que podría tratarse de un caso de histeria colectiva. Dada la presión a la que se encuentran sometidos algunos de los diplomáticos que trabajan en entornos muy poco amigables, y la relación endogámica en la que viven, conviviendo casi exclusivamente entre ellos, podría explicar un convencimiento mutuo de un ataque exterior que incluso tuviera consecuencias somáticas.

Punto débil. Tanto la investigación de la Universidad de Pensilvania como el médico del Departamento de Estado, Charles Rosenfarb, que comparecenció ante el Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado, vinieron a descartar que los síntomas sufridos por los diplomáticos se debieran a un mero mecanismo mental. Es muy difícil que unas sesenta personas, contando a estadounidenses y canadienses, se convencieran entre ellos de una agresión de este tipo y que luego casi todos ellos desarrollaran las mismas lesiones cerebrales.

2) Microondas

Formulación. El equipo investigador de la Universidad de Pensilvania, si bien no apuntó ninguna posible causa de las dolencias, no descartó ciertos supuestos, como el de la afectación por microondas. Sobre este aspecto insistió una investigación publicada en 2018 en la revista Neural Computation, que consideraba los síntomas consistentes con la exposición a una radiación de microondas electromagnéticas (RF/MW).

Punto débil. No todos los síntomas mostrados por los pacientes podrían ser consecuencia de la exposición de una radiación de ese tipo, que además cuenta con una literatura que diverge sobre sus efectos en el cuerpo humano. Además, no se conoce que exista un arma de microondas que pueda afectar al cerebro.

3) Ultrasonido

Formulación. Un equipo de expertos informáticos de la Universidad de Michigan sugirió en 2018 que podría tratarse de un caso de exposición a algún tipo de ultrasonido, quizá proveniente de un equipo de escucha en mal funcionamiento que mezclara múltiples señales ultrasónicas.

Punto débil. La grabación de uno de los episodios de sonido –la muestra difundida por AP– no es suficiente para poder determinar su naturaleza. También cabe que el sonido fuera algo distinto en otros de los casos.

4) Grillos

Formulación. Una investigación de la Universidades de California-Berkeley y de Lincoln, a partir de la muestra de sonido existente, consideró en enero de 2019 que la posible causa de los ataques fue hecha por grillos, específicamente los grillos Anurogryllus muticus. La investigación fue un estudio comparativo entre el sonido emitido por esa variante de grillos y la muestra de uno de los episodios acústicos de La Habana.

Punto débil. El sonido percibido por los diplomáticos era direccional, de forma que no fue escuchado por personas vecinas. Si hubieran sido grillos en su medio natural, el sonido se hubiera expandido alrededor.

5) Neurotoxinas

Formulación. Un estudio conjunto de dos centros de investigación canadienses de mayo de 2019 atribuyó los síntomas sufridos por los diplomáticos a la exposición a las neurotoxinas de pesticidas utilizados para fumigar mosquitos, una práctica habitual en los edificios de las embajadas.

Punto débil. Los diplomáticos afectados relacionaron el comienzo de su malestar físico con situaciones vividas en sus propias residencias o en habitaciones de hotel, donde no hubo las fumigaciones apuntadas.

SI FUE UN ATAQUE, ¿QUIÉN LO HIZO?

Dado las explicaciones previas no parecen del todo sólidas, el Gobierno de EEUU mantiene la hipótesis de un ataque. Si este realmente se hubiera producido, ¿quién estaría detrás? También aquí hay diversas conjeturas.

1) Régimen castrista

La primera opción barajada, asumida en principio por EEUU dadas las acusaciones públicas realizadas desde Washington, ha sido atribuir los supuestos ataques al propio régimen cubano. Con ellos La Habana pretendería mantener la presión sobre los estadounidenses, a pesar del restablecimiento formal de relaciones diplomáticas, con el objetivo de marcar el territorio de cada cual.

Punto débil. Los incidentes comenzaron a ocurrir durante la Administración Obama, en un contexto de ˝luna de miel˝ marcada por la reapertura de embajadas y la visita de Barack Obama a La Habana. Lo normal es que a finales de 2016, ante las elecciones norteamericanas, el régimen castrista no quisiera dar motivos al próximo presidente estadounidense para torcer la línea diplomática abierta por Obama. Podría tener sentido que tras la revocación que luego hizo Donald Tump de las medidas aperturistas previas, Cuba quisiera castigar a la nueva Administración, pero no antes de ver la dirección que esta tomaba; en cualquier caso, los ataques no harían sino justificar la línea dura seguida por Trump, que no beneficia a la isla.

2) Un sector del castrismo

A Fidel Castro se le atribuyó una actitud poco complaciente con la decisión de su hermano Raúl de restablecer las relaciones diplomáticas con EEUU. Aunque murió en noviembre de 2016, personas de su entorno podrían haber intentado torpedear esa aproximación, convencidos de que la hostilidad con Washington era la mejor manera de asegurar la pervivencia del régimen tal como fue concebido por su fundador.

Punto débil. Si bien es cierta la reticencia de Fidel Castro hacia el acercamiento con EEUU, es difícil pensar que el sector más conservador dentro del castrismo osara boicotear tan directamente la fundamental línea política de Raúl Castro. Otra cosa es que, después de que este cediera la presidencia de Cuba a Miguel Díaz-Canel en abril de 2018, algunos sectores dentro del régimen pudieran protagonizar movimientos internos para enviar ciertos mensajes, pero el relevo se produjo cuando ya se habían dado la mayor parte de los episodios acústicos.

3) Un tercer país (Rusia, China)

La tercera opción sería que un tercer país haya generado los ataques. La inteligencia americana señala que la opción más viable en este caso sería Rusia. Moscú ha puesto interés en volver a operar en el Caribe, como en la Guerra Fría, y agresión a los diplomáticos estadounidenses en Cuba encajaría con su estrategia. También se ha apuntado que China podría querer pagar a Washington en su patio trasero con el mismo hostigamiento que los chinos creen sentir por parte de EEUU en sus mares más próximos.

Punto débil. El regreso de Rusia al Caribe está ciertamente documentado, y puede ser imaginable que Moscú hubiera podido haber impulsado una acción puntual contra algún objetivo específico, pero parece difícil que haya sostenido en el tiempo una operación que lesiona la soberanía de Cuba. En cuanto a la presencia de China en el vecindario de EEUU, se trata de un movimiento de menor confrontación que el llevado a cabo por Rusia. Por lo demás, si Pekín hubiera escogido suelo extranjero para así borrar mejor los trazos de una acción contra diplomáticos estadounidenses, entonces no se habrían dado los casos registrados en Guangzhou.

En los mayores países de la región, los guardias privados son cuatro veces más que los policías y disponen de diez veces más de armas que en Europa

Los elevados índices de violencia en Latinoamérica y la deficiente presencia de la autoridad de los respectivos Estados en partes del territorio han llevado a la proliferación de empresas privadas de seguridad en toda la región. Su número supera ya las 16.000 compañías, en una industria que involucra a más de 2,4 millones de personas. El sector afronta importantes retos, como legalidad imprecisa en muchos casos, déficit de experiencia, formas incompatibles con los derechos civiles y humanos en ciertos lugares y riesgo de escalada de arsenales.

ARTÍCULO / Martín Biera Muriel

La proliferación de las empresas de seguridad privada en América Latina va ligada a las estadísticas de criminalidad y violencia en la región. Se estima que 19 de cada 20 crímenes violentos que ocurren en el mundo tienen lugar en Latinoamérica, donde se encuentran 17 de las 20 ciudades más violentas del mundo y 4 de los 5 países con mayor violencia.

La situación ha dado lugar a un “crecimiento explosivo” de la privatización de la seguridad en América Latina, como lo califica el informe “Seguridad a la venta” de Diálogo Interamericano. El aumento del número de Empresas de Defensa y Seguridad Privada (EMSP) se ha dado no solo en países con acusados conflictos, como Colombia, donde en los últimos diez años se ha registrado un incremento del 126%, sino también en países de mayor paz social e institucionalidad como Chile, que en cinco años ha visto un incremento del 50%. El total de empresas dedicadas a esta función en Latinoamérica llegaba a 16.174 en 2017, como precisaba entonces el Centro para el Control Democrático de las Fuerzas Armadas de Ginebra (DCAF).

El sector de las EMSP

El término EMSP incluye tanto las empresas se seguridad al uso en países desarrollados, dedicadas normalmente a labores de custodia de establecimientos o personas físicas, como también empresas de defensa que pueden llegar a sustituir funciones habitualmente reservadas al Estado. Estas últimas se desarrollaron tras el fin de la Guerra Fría y han llegado a ser un actor importante en las relaciones internacionales, con participación en conflictos de baja e incluso alta intensidad.

Esas empresas de defensa actúan en un marco de complicada legalidad, cuya regulación intentó estandarizarse en 2008 con el Documento de Montreaux, una compilación de obligaciones legales y buenas prácticas destinada a garantizar la soberanía de los Estados y a proteger los Derechos Humanos. Si bien el texto se aplica más directamente a situaciones de conflicto armado, también aporta un marco regulatorio para las empresas de seguridad en general, dada la tenue frontera entre un tipo de empresas y otras, especialmente en Latinoamérica, donde la autoridad del Estado no alcanza muchas veces a todo el territorio nacional, algunos conflictos civiles son especialmente virulentos y ciertos usan a las Fuerzas Armadas en la lucha contra la violencia criminal y el mantenimiento del orden público.

Más guardias que policías

Las más de 16.000 EMSP de América Latina emplean en torno a 2,4 millones de personas. Si bien los guardias de seguridad superan en número a los miembros de la policía en todo el mundo, en muchos países latinoamericanos se produce un especial desequilibrio entre el número de componentes de las fuerzas policiales y el de los agentes privados: en Colombia, Brasil y México la relación es de un policía por cuatro miembros de EMSP; en países de extrema violencia como Honduras y Guatemala la relación incluso llega a ser de uno a siete. También se da el caso de que muchos miembros de la policía recurren al pluriempleo, ejerciendo de policías durante el día y convirtiéndose en agentes de seguridad por la noche en algún vecindario, empresa o edificio.

Las mayores empresas son las que se dedican a la vigilancia y a la escolta de clientes VIP. Las más grandes son de origen europeo y estadounidense y están especializadas en una parte del sector, especialmente en la protección de la propiedad privada. En su mayoría actúan en ciudades o bien en centros de extracción de recursos naturales aislados de las zonas urbanas. En relación a las frecuentes críticas que reciben estas empresas, por supuesta suplantación de funciones propias de la autoridad legalmente constituida, es necesario destacar que el marco jurídico en el que las grandes empresas operan es estricto y se encuentra supervisado.

Carrera de armamento

Se puede argumentar que la competencia entre los operadores ha generado una especie de carrera armamentística en la que cada empresa desea ofrecer servicios más eficaces. A su vez, al haber mayor número de agentes y además con armas más modernas, los criminales tienden igualmente a aumentar su potencia de fuego y sus capacidades para cumplir con sus objetivos, lo que consecuentemente lleva a las empresas a incrementar también el calibre de su armamento, en una espiral difícil de controlar. Las estadísticas muestran que Latinoamérica tiene la relación más alta de armas de fuego por guardia de seguridad del mundo fuera de aquellas áreas afectadas por conflictos. Esa relación es diez veces superior a la que existe sobre armas cortas en Europa.

Esto ha motivado que en el escenario latinoamericano en alguna ocasión se haya criticado a ciertas EMSP por haber contribuido, directa o indirectamente, al tráfico ilegal de armas y al aumento de las bandas armadas generando un círculo vicioso. Por ejemplo, en 2015 noventa personas fueron detenidas en San Francisco (algunas de ellas vinculadas a EMSP) por pertenecer a una red de tráfico de armas vinculada a la Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). También se ha dado el caso de robo y extravío de armas importadas desde la región, tanto por parte de contratistas individuales de seguridad privada como por los propios militares; estas armas luego ingresan en el mercado negro. Así, más del 40% de las armas ilegales en El Salvador están vinculadas a unas 460 empresas privadas de seguridad, a pesar de la obligación de tener un registro oficial para su identificación.

Retos

La reducción de los altos niveles de inseguridad es uno de los principales retos de muchos países latinoamericanos. Las razones que explican la persistente violencia en sus sociedades son múltiples; entre ellas están la corrupción política y la desigualdad económica. Las clases más ricas pueden considerarse blanco de intentos de robo o secuestro, pero también las clases populares padecen las altas cifras de criminalidad, en su caso sin posibilidad de recurrir a la seguridad privada.

La seguridad privada en América Latina afronta dos importantes retos. Uno es ilegalidad de parte del sector: las empresas de corte ilegal crecen de forma más rápida que en el sector legal; en Brasil, por ejemplo, el número de guardias empleados informalmente supero a los formales. El otro es la falta de entrenamiento o experiencia de cierto volumen de los guardias privados. Atender a la necesidad de mayor regulación legal, y de una regulación más ajustada a las especificidades nacionales, y a la conveniencia de mayor formación ayudará a reducir la zona gris en la que en muchos casos se opera y  las violaciones de Derechos Humanos.

How Russia, China, India and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries react to the new US sanctions against Iran

▲ Presidents Putin and Rouhani during a meeting in Tehran, in September 2018 [Wikipedia]

ANALYSIS / Alfonso Carvajal

As US-Iranian relations continue to deteriorate, the balance of power and regional alliances will be prone to shifting and changing. Iranians will likely feel increasingly more marginalised as time passes and will seek to remedy their state of international isolation. Here, the main factors to look out for will be the nations seeking to achieve great power status, and how they will try to attract Iran towards them while pushing the Islamic Republic further away from the United States.

China and Russia’s response

Russia’s relations with Iran have historically been complicated. While at some points, the two countries have faced each other as rivals in war, other times have seen them enjoy peace and cooperation. Russia has been an important actor in Iranian international relations since at least the Sixteenth Century and will most likely retain its importance in the long run. Since the fall of the USSR, Russian-Iranian relations have improved, as many issues that had caused tensions suddenly disappeared. These issues where mainly caused by their ideological incompatibility, as the USSR’s atheism was looked upon with suspicion by Khomeini, and its support given to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

Recently, both countries have found themselves facing international, mainly US, economic sanctions. This is a factor that is important to acknowledge, and that will shape their future relations. As Russia and Iran struggle to defuse the effects of sanctions, they will seek trade elsewhere. This means that they have found in each other a way to make for their isolation, and their ties are likely to only grow. Militarily, cooperation has already been cemented by years of sanctions in Iran.

Whereas once the Iranian Armed Forces boasted of having the most advanced Western-built fighter jets and other military material in the region, Iran now often uses Russian and Chinese aircraft and military gear, coupled with its own native military industry that was independently developed as a result of its isolation. Iran is also said to cooperate with Russia in certain industrial sectors close to the military such as drones. However, due to the latest international sanctions, Russia is less keen to continue to cooperate on military sales and technology transfers. For this reason, Russia has shown reluctance towards helping the Iranian nuclear program, although it is in favour of reaching a deal with Iran along with the international community.

A cornerstone in Russian-Iranian relations has always been their mutual distrust towards Turkey. In the age of the Ottoman Empire, relations between Persians and Russians would often consist in an alignment against the Ottoman Turks. Nowadays, their relationship also has this component, as Turkey and Iran are increasingly competing in the Middle East to decide who will lead the reconstruction of the region, whilst Russia and Turkey find themselves at odds in the Black Sea, where Russia’s ambition of naval dominance is being challenged.

While it may seem that Russia and Iran should be close allies, there are a series of reasons to explain why cooperation is not likely to see a fully fledged alliance. First of all, there are far too many differences between both regimes, as they have different geopolitical imperatives and ambitions in the Caucasus and the Middle east. The second issue is Israel. As Russia moves further into the Levant, it tries to maintain good relations with Israel, Iran’s archenemy, also called little Satan by Iran’s first supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. As the conflict in Syria dies down in the following years, Russia will be forced to choose between who to support. This is likely to mean a withdrawal of support towards Iran’s position in Syria, as it sees its meddling in the region increasingly unproductive, and would favour its retreat. Iran, however, has said it is there to stay.

Russian-Iranian cooperation has recently been developed in one important country of the region: Afghanistan. As the US seems to lose interest in the Middle East and pivots towards East Asia, Russia and Iran have moved into the war-torn country, as they back different factions aiming to end the decades-long conflict. Russia has previously backed the Taliban, because it wants to ensure that they are a part of the peace negotiations. Iran has backed both the government and the Taliban, as it wants to fight the rising influence of ISIS in Afghanistan, as well as keep good relations with the Taliban to maintain a degree of stability and control over Afghanistan’s west, so that the conflict does not spill over. Although Russia and Iran might have different objectives, they are united in wanting to push the US of the region.

The other geopolitical giant that is slowly encroaching on the region is the People’s Republic of China, albeit with a different stance altogether. Like Russia, China has welcomed business with Iran and currently supports the nuclear deal, the JCPOA, which the US recently left. Chinese-Iranian ties are more solid than the Russian’s, as they don’t have as many overlapping hegemonic ambitions. In a certain way, the relations between these two countries arose as a way to contain the USSR’s expansive influence during the 1970’s after the Sino-Soviet split, and predate the current Iranian regime. Both countries see their relation as part of the past, as great empires of antiquity, the present, and see each other as important partners for future and ongoing projects, such as the One Road One Belt initiative. However, as does Russia, China sometimes tries to play down its support towards Iran so as not to antagonize its relations with the West and the US in particular.

The Chinese have cooperated with the Islamic Republic since its conception in the 80’s, as the Iranian isolation led them towards the few markets they could access. The main theme of this cooperation has been undoubtedly based on hydrocarbons. Iran is one of the most important producers of both crude petroleum and natural gas. China is Iran’s largest trade partner, as 31% of Iran’s exports go to China, whose imports represent 37% of Iran’s in 2017. Military cooperation between these two countries has also been very important, a large part of Iran’s non-indigenous military material is of Chinese origin. The Chinese have historically been the main providers of arms to the Iranian regime, as can be seen by much of the equipment currently used by the IRGC.

Both regimes feel a certain closeness as some parts of their ideologies are similar. Both share an anti-imperialist worldview and are sceptical of Western attitudes, an attitude best perceived among their unelected leaders. They are countries that are emerging from the misery left behind by Western imperialism, according to their own narrative. Both see each other as the heirs of some of the world’s oldest cultures—the Chinese often talk of 20 centuries of cooperation between both states—, and thus feel a historical, civilizational and anti-imperialist connection in this sense. Iranians admire the great leaps that the PRC has taken towards development, and the great successes they have brought to the Chinese people and State. They also value the Chinese mindset of not meddling or criticizing the internal affairs of other States, and treating them all in the same way independent of their government.

On the other hand, the Chinese are happy to work with a Muslim country that doesn’t stir the restive North-Western Xinjiang region, where the majority of China’s Uighur Muslims live. In fact, Iran is seen by the Chinese as an important factor on the stability of Central Asia. More recently, they also see in Iran a key part of the pharaonic One Belt One Road infrastructure project, as Iran sits in the crossroads between East and West. It is understood that Beijing has high expectations of cooperation with Teheran.

However, not all of it is positive. Iranians and Chinese have different ideological foundations. China has shown that it will not be able to form an full-fledged alliance with Iran, as it fears Western backlash. In 2010 China voted a UNSC resolution in favour of sanctions towards Iran. Even though these were largely ignored by China later, Tehran understood the message. As a result of these sanctions, the only nations willing to trade with Iran where Russia and China. The latter became an increasingly important trade partner as a consequence of the lack of Western competition and began to flood the Iranian market with low-quality goods, which was unpopular among the Iranians. Resentment toward China only grew as the Chinese firms that became established in Iran brought their own workers from China and unemployment remained at high levels despite the increased economic activity. As discontent rose, Iranians of all backgrounds saw the negotiations with the West with great expectations. If successful, negotiations could provide a diversification of providers and a counterbalance against Chinese influence.

As negotiations have broken down under the Trump administration, China’s role in Iran is likely to only intensify. While the Europeans fight to save the nuclear deal, Iran is set to count on China as its main trade partner. Chinese firms, although now more vulnerable to pressure from the US than in 2010, still have strong interests in Iran, and are unlikely to leave what will be a competition-free market once most foreign firms are deterred by US sanctions. The Chinese will seek to keep the nuclear provisions of the JCPOA agreement and will cooperate in the development of the Arak Heavy Water Reactor, probably displacing the Russians, which have historically led the Iranian nuclear program. Chinese involvement in the Iranian nuclear industry will likely prevent the development of a bomb, as China does not want to encourage nuclear arms proliferation.

While China moves into South Asia, alarms go off in New Delhi. India sees itself as the dominant power in the region and its traditional enmity towards China is causing a change in its foreign policy. India’s PM, Narendra Modi, is following a policy of “Neighbourhood first” in the face of a growing Chinese presence. China already has expanded its reach to countries like Sri Lanka, where it has secured the port of Hambantota for a 99-year lease. In the latest years, Pakistan, India’s other arch-enemy, has become one of China’s closest partners. The relation between both countries stems from their rivalry towards India, although cooperation has reached new levels. The Chinese- Pakistan Economic Corridor runs from the Chinese city of Kashgar through the entire length of the country of Pakistan and ends in the developing port of Gwadar. The project has caused a rush of much needed capital in the financially unstable Pakistan, with Chinese and Saudi bonds keeping it afloat. In the face of China’s new projects and its New Silk Road, New Delhi sees itself more and more surrounded, and has accused China of scheming to isolate it.

To face China’s new stance, India has taken a more active role. Its prime minister made many State visits to the neighbouring countries in a bid to weaken Chinese influence. In this effort to impose itself on what it sees as its region, India is developing a deep-sea port in the coast of Iran, past the strait of Hormuz in the Indian ocean. Iran will be an important piece in the designs of the Indian political elite.

The development of the deep-sea port of Chabahar is a joint Indian, Iranian and Afghan project to improve the connectivity of the region and has more than one reason of being. It is effectively a port to connect Central Asia, a growing 65-million people market, through a series of rail and road networks which are also part of the project, to the Indian Ocean. Another reason for this port is the development of war-torn Afghanistan, which also serves the purpose of reducing Pakistan’s influence there. Pakistan holds a firm grip in Afghanistan and sees it as its back yard. Pakistan is said to harbour Taliban guerrillas, who use the country to launch attacks against Afghanistan, as it did against the USSR in the 80’s. The most important feature of all for India is that the port would allow it to bypass what is an effective land blockade from Pakistan, and will permit it to reach and trade with Afghanistan. The Chabahar port will essentially compete with the Chinese-built Gwadar port in nearby Pakistan, in the two superpowers’ race for influence and domination of the ocean’s oil-carrying sea lanes.

India’s usual approach is to keep a neutral stance around world conflicts in order to be able to talk and deal with all parties. This is part of its non-commitment policy. For example, India has relations with both Israel and Palestine, or Iran and Saudi Arabia. This means that India is very unlikely to make any serious statement in favour of Iran against the United States if Iranian-US relations were to badly break down, as it might be seen as picking sides by some countries. It does not mean, however, that it will abandon Iran. India has already invested greatly in infrastructure projects and is unlikely to simply withdraw them. Far more importantly, India is one of Iran’s biggest petroleum purchasers, and losing such an important market and provider is not a choice the Indian government is eager to make.

India calls its relationship with Iran a “strategic partnership”, in terms of cooperation in energy and trade activities. The Indian government is likely to take a cautious stance while acting with principles of Realpolitik. They will try to sort out sanctions if they can and will discourage this sort of activity while trying to maintain their interests in the region. As said before, New Delhi will shy away from committing strongly from any project likely to keep its hands tied.

The Syrian War

In 2011, the Middle East and North Africa region was shaken by what would soon be called the Arab Spring. While the citizens of many Arab countries where chanting pro- democratic slogans and protesting outside dictators’ palaces and in the squares of Middle Eastern capitals, outside observers began to say that the once dictatorship- riddled region was about to adopt Western liberal democracy in what would become an era of freedom never paralleled in such countries. What came later could hardly be further from that reality. The region was struck by great waves civil unrest, as one by one, from West to East, the waves of revolution spread. The most authoritarian regimes attacked their own citizens with brutal repression, and what seemed like democratic transitions rapidly turned out to fall back into authoritarianism. Such was the case in Egypt, among others. However, some countries where struck harder than others. The more serious cases became civil wars. Some of the countries that had enjoyed relative long-term stability, like Libya and Syria burst into civil war. Yemen too, was struck by sectarian conflict.

The longest of these conflicts, the Syrian Civil War, is on its 8th year already. For a long time, it has drawn many international and regional actors, turning its countryside into a patchwork of pro-government militias, rebel guerrillas, Islamist extremism, transnational nationalist movements and others. The ruling class, the Al- Assad alawite family, under an authoritarian and secularist regime, has held on to power through every means possible, using foreign support as a crucial part of its survival strategy. To his side, Bashar Al-Assad has drawn the support of Vladimir Putin’s Russian Federation, as well as the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Lebanese ally, Hezbollah. Each of these players has brought their own forces to the battlefield, as Russia has helped give Syria the necessary aerial capabilities it lacked, while Iran provides it with Shia militias, material, volunteers, and the presence of Hezbollah.

The regime faces many groups, who often fight against each other, and have different international backing, if any. For example, the Free Syrian Army is said to be backed by Turkey and is made from Sunni Arab and Turkmen militias. Other groups such as the Islamic State or Al Qaeda affiliated organizations also fight for survival, or to implement their ideal society. Another important group, perhaps the most important one is the YPG, or People’s Protection Unit, largely a Kurdish force, which holds much of Northern Syria, the Kurdish region called Rojava. The YPG and the Syrian government of Al-Assad seem to have come to an understanding and try not to enter into hostilities amongst each other, focusing on the Islamic State, or ISIL. YPG international backing comes mainly from the US, but with President Donald Trump having said that the US will soon leave Syria, their future is uncertain.

With Bashar Al-Assad’s position having become dominant in the Syrian battlefield, it is expected that the conflict will enter a new stage. Israel has shown its growing discomfort in what it sees as Iranian expansionism, and has launched aerial offensives against Iranian positions, permitted by Russia, who currently controls much of Syria’s aerial defences. This might spell the loosening of Al-Assad’s coalition.

As Iranian-backed forces draw closer to the southwest of Syria, Israel becomes more and more nervous. The implication of Israel in the Syrian conflict would most likely be a disaster for all parties involved. If Israel comes to point of fearing for its territorial integrity, or its existence, it has previously shown, in many occasions, that it will not doubt to take action and use all of its military might in the process if needed.

This is why Hezbollah is unlikely to make a serious move towards the Golan Heights. Hezbollah now boasts of the greatest amount of power it has ever had in its domestic scene. It is an influential actor in the Syrian War and at home it has achieved serious political power, forming a coalition with various other Shia and Christian groups. A war with Israel, in which it was identified as the aggressor, would be disastrous to its image as a protector of the Lebanese, as it has always taken a stance of resistance. It would put all of Hezbollah’s political achievements in jeopardy. Whatever the case, Israel boasts of significantly more modern and powerful armed forces, which would force Hezbollah to be on the defensive, thus making an offensive into Israel extremely unlikely. Hezbollah must then try to restrain Iran, although, amongst the myriad of Iranian-backed militias, it has lost leverage in its relations with Iran and the IRGC.

For Bashar Al-Assad, war with Israel might prove an existential threat, as it bears the potential to cause a great deal of damage in Syria, undermining any effort to consolidate power and end the war in his favour. If war with Israel broke out, even if it was just against Iranian-backed objectives, Al-Assad would never be able to obtain the reconstruction funds it so badly needs to rebuild the country. Israel’s powerful and advanced army would without a doubt pose the patchwork of battle-hardened militias a very big challenge. Thus, it is very unlikely for Al-Assad to permit a war might cause his downfall.

Russia, wishing to end the war and keep its military bases and prestige in the process, would no doubt discourage any sort of posturing against Israel from its allies in Syria. Moscow seeks to maintain good relations with Israel and wouldn’t be very upset about an Iranian exit. It is already trying to prevent Iran and Hezbollah from coming too close to the Israeli and Jordanian borders and has opened the Syrian airspace to Israeli aerial attacks towards Iranian targets located in its vicinity. Russia would welcome a quick and impressive end to the war to consolidate its status as a global power and become a power broker in the region.

Reaching a deal with the US to end hostilities in exchange for the recognition of Al-Assad is not outside the realms of possibility, as chances of regime change get slimmer, the US will be forced to recognize that Al-Assad is there to stay. It is necessary to acknowledge that a Russian-US deal will be incomplete, and quite unfruitful. The US is very likely to demand that Iran leave Syria and stops occupying Iraq with is Quds Force. Russia does not possess the leverage to send Iran back home. It would also be unfavourable for Russia as it has chosen to help Assad to regain its status as a great power in the world and has become a major power broker in the Middle East. This means their position relies on their status, which would be compromised, were Iran to openly confront Russia. The Iranians have already said that they would not leave unless Bashar Al-Assad specifically asked them to. Russia could pressure on Al-Assad, but the Iranians are likely to have more leverage, as they have a larger ground force in the region, and where the first to help the Syrian regime.

If the US wants to achieve any sort of meaningful peace negotiations, it must come into dialogue with the Iranians. Any sort of negotiation that does not include Iran would be pointless, as the amount of influence it has acquired in the region these last years makes it a key player. Iran is determined to stay in Syria and the IRGC is committed to force the government to keep its presence abroad.

In any case, the retreat of US troops in Syria would mark a turning point in the war. Currently the US provides air support, has 2,000 ground troops and provides an vital amount of equipment to the YPG Kurdish forces. Its retreat would be a blow to American credibility as an international ally, as it abandons the Kurds in a decisive moment where all tables could turn against them. Turkey has committed forces towards fighting the Kurds, which it sees as a threat to its national integrity, as large numbers of Kurds live inside Turkey and are hostile to it. The main reason for Turkish entry into the Syrian war was to stop the YPG from uniting a long stretch of land along the Turkish

border towards the Mediterranean Sea and to prevent the establishment of a Kurdish state. It is therefore a possibility that, whether through its Syrian proxies, or with its own army, the Turks will ally with Al-Assad against the Kurds, if these two don’t reach an agreement and begin hostilities. This alliance is more than likely, as Turkish animosity towards Kurdish forces will cause them to jump at the occasion, if Al-Assad asks for help. Al-Assad might seek in this way to balance Iranian influence by integrating another player, which would cause tensions between Iran and Turkey to rise, as both countries aspire to obtain regional hegemony, and would give Syria more margin to manoeuvre.

Saudi Arabian soldier from the First Airborne Brigade with a UAE soldier, 2016 [Saudi88hawk-Wikipedia]

Saudi-Iranian rivalry

The struggle for dominance in the region is expected to continue indeterminately. As long as the ideological argument between the Islamic Republic and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) exists, it will take geopolitical dimensions, as both states seek to ensure their legitimacy in the face of the other. The Iran-Iraq War shaped the Islamic Republic’s sense of geopolitical isolation, giving the more entrenched sectors of its political elite a fierce will to prevent any further isolation as was done in the past. Chemical weapons, often provided by the US were used against it, without any action taken from the international community. Therefore, the Iranian elites believe that Iran will have to stand by itself, and knows it will have few allies.

For the moment, Iran seems to be winning the confrontation. With a the possibility of a consolidated Syria, Iran’s influence would be unparalleled. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon will provide Iran the reach and the potential to expand its influence even in the Mediterranean Sea. The war in Yemen is proving as costly as it is ineffective to Saudi Arabia and its allies, with a minimum cost from Iran. It can be expected that Iran keeps its strong grip over these countries, as its presence has become necessary for the survival of some of these states. It will not be without difficulty, as local forces are likely to reject the imposition of Iranian authority. This has been shown before in the burning of the Iranian consulate in Basra [4], by local Sunni Arabs who resent the degree of influence its neighbour has in their country. The recently struck commercial deals with Iraq during Rouhani’s visit to the country might cause more Iraqis to take a more confrontational stance, as they are seen to benefit Iran more than Iraq. Both counties have pledged to increase their trade up to 20 billion dollars, but it will be hard to determine how they will affect Iraq. With this degree of Iranian involvement, the KSA’s influence diminishes.

The Yemeni war is likely to drag on for years, and if the Saudis are to win, the shall have to keep paying a high toll, which will require strong political will to overcome the adversities. The expense of this war is not only material, it has primarily taken a great diplomatic cost, as it loses credibility to its allies, like the US, which see the ineffectiveness of the Saudi military. At home, their western allies struggle to explain their partnership with a country that has proven too much to handle for certain political groups and the civil society in general, with its lack of human rights considerations and sharia-based laws that seem outdated to Westerners. The cruel Yemeni war further alienates the Saudi Kingdom from them.

The conflict for Middle Eastern hegemony might be about to attract a new player. As Pakistan tries to deal with its ongoing crisis, its new president, Imran Khan, has looked to the Gulf States for funding. The Saudis and the UAE have already pledged many billion dollars. For now, the economic woes make Pakistan an unlikely actor, but there is evidence of a change of direction in Islamabad, as Khan seems to part ways from his predecessor’s foreign policy regarding its western neighbour. Cooperation with Iran has significantly been reduced, especially in terms of security and anti-terrorism, as in March 2019 Baluchi ethno-nationalists once again attacked Iranian positions from the Pakistani border. Tehran seems alarmed by these developments and has explicitly warned Pakistan that an approach towards Saudi Arabia and participation in the so called Middle Eastern Cold War will have severe consequences for Pakistan. It is right in fearing Pakistan, which has shown that it can play the same game as Iran, making use of foreign militias and having an impressive intelligence service, on top of the nuclear bomb. If Iran where to cause conflict in Pakistan, it might find itself in severe disadvantage, as it would be harder to use subversive activities in the predominantly Sunni country. It might also come to odds with China, who will view any menace to its infrastructure projects with great suspicion. Iran would have difficult time finding a serious counterbalance to Pakistan in India, as India would decline to strike a serious alliance due to its many interests in the Gulf States.

Iran, however, still holds many cards it can use if the conflict were to escalate. Bahrain, whose predominantly Shia population contrast to its powerful Sunni ruling family, which will find itself fighting to maintain control in the case of an Iranian- backed coup similar to the one in 1981, or a pro-democracy uprising with significant Shia elements such as the one of 2011. For the latter, had the Gulf states not intervened in Bahrain in support of its ruling family, Bahrain would now likely be part of the Iranian regional system, which would be extremely troublesome for the KSA, given its proximity. It can also be expected for Iran to influence the oppressed Shia Arabs along Saudi Arabia’s Persian Gulf coast. These Shia Arabs lie just above most of KSA’s petrol wells and reserves, and if stirred to open rebellion, and properly armed, would cause immense trouble in the Monarchy.

The other option open to Iran will be to exploit the current Gulf crisis between the KSA and UAE against Qatar, whose blockade has lasted almost two years. Iran will seek to build up stronger ties with Qatar, who has found itself isolated by most Arab nations. Currently, Turkey is the key ally to Qatar in the crisis, and their partnership is seen to have strategic importance by both parties.

Qatar has traditionally had better ties to Iran than most other Gulf states, also due to the fact that they share the South-Pars/North Dome natural gas field, the largest in the world, and rely on cooperation to exploit its resources and wealth. This is largely a product of its independent foreign policy. This means that Iran is likely to use the crisis to drive a wedge between the members of the GCC and take advantage of their disunity in favour of Qatar and in detriment to the KSA. It will be difficult for the Iranians and the Qataris form a significant partnership, since there are still too many obstacles to this. First of all, Qatar is a Sunni Arab state, and it is the main exporter of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideas, which would not fit Iran’s tendency toward Shia countries. Secondly, a partnership with Iran would make the Gulf Cooperation Council’s crisis permanently irreparable, which is not desired by Qatar. Finally, this would turn Qatar into the main objective of the Saudi-led coalition and would unnecessarily put it in harm’s way.

One key factor could change everything in a highly unlikely scenario, also known as a ‘black swan’. This is the disappearance of ISIS from the Levant, and its relocation to Khorasan, a term used for Central Asia, Northern Iran and Afghanistan. This would change the balance of power in the middle East as it would bring conflict to the very borders of Iran. It would allow for Iran’s enemies to arm this extremely anti-Shia group, following a parallel of the Yemen’s Houthi rebels for Saudi Arabia. These rebels are banking on the opportunity that, following peace in Afghanistan with the Taliban, the Taliban’s followers will become disenchanted by its leadership dealings with the US and would thus join the newly founded group. They would acquire the battle-hardened Taliban troops, which would provide a formidable foe for Iran.

Why Tehran has decided to openly confront US sanctions and how the crisis could develop from now

▲ Persian chess-game [Pixabay]

ANALYSIS / Baltasar Martos

It is now time to suggest a possible future-oriented course of action for Iran in response to the US unilateral exit from the nuclear deal¹. The strategy employed to this end will be that of the red-hat analysis, capitalizing on cultural comprehension and adopting the Iranian regime’s perspective to better understand the way in which it perceives the various threats and opportunities ahead, hence always considering situational factors.

A SWOT analysis will be provided beforehand by way of introduction, focusing just in one of the most important (1) strengths: high proportion of young people; (2) weaknesses: the intrincate political system; (3) opportunities: a closer relationship with leading European countries, and (4) threats: joint pressure by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. This will surely enable a more in-depth approach to Iranian views and positions.

A simplified SWOT

1. First and foremost, Iran is home for more than 80 million people, 43% of which are less than 40 years old. This large young population is very much tuned to Western trends and habits of consumption. They embrace technology virtually as much as in any other Western nation. The most striking fact about Iranian youngsters is the amount of university students among them. The country is well known for hosting a highly qualified population and labor force that acquired superior education at any of the numerous universities in the major cities.

2. In second place, Iran owns a very complex, intricate political system that renders the hierarchy of the decision-making process very difficult to understand. Its current institutions are a product of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which ousted the Shah and reformed the whole previous power network. The political system of the country then turned from an authoritarian Monarchy into a constitutional theocracy with a multipolar power structure. The religious figure of the Supreme Leader or Ayatollah is the ultimate responsible for setting both domestic and foreign policy. The main issue here is that this institution holds views that are deeply rooted in the old days and endeavors to influence the private lives of the citizens. Decisions are self-explanatorily not made according to economic efficiency or political experience, or even less to satisfy population’s demands. Instead they aim to preserve and safeguard the regime and ensure its survival. The primary concern of the ruling political elites is thus to last in power, not to introduce reforms or think prospectively.

3. In the third place, Iran has now the chance to strengthen ties with its traditional powerful trade partners in the European Union, such as France, England or Italy. Provided their opposition vis-à-vis the US reimposition of sanctions, Iran can utilize this opportunity to begin a rapprochement towards them and express its best desire to cooperate under certain established conditions that prove beneficial to both parts.

4. Finally, Iran should not disregard the warnings coming from the White House. The main threat Iran is likely to face is an aggressive diplomatic strategy at the initiative of the US with the aggregated—but separated—efforts of Israel and Saudi Arabia. This would definitely jeopardize Iran’s current position as one of the dominant powers in the region and would force the nation to find an alternative solution.

Red Hat exercise

Tehran’s interpretation of Washington’s 2018 diplomatic shift quite evidently differs from that of the Trump administration². In the words of Ayatollah Khamenei, the ultimate reason for this new move lies in the US’s perverse ambition to progressively weaken and undermine the socio-political structure built after decades of arduous work by the Islamic Revolution. Khamenei claims that Washington’s intention is to overturn a popular, legitimate government in favor of a puppet regime completely subjected to its will.

In their public speeches, the Iranian political elites constantly refer to the US’s boundless ambition to regain total control of the region, oppress civil society and submit individuals to their corrupted dogmas and doctrines, like they did decades ago. They very often evoke the glorious past of their millenary civilization and emphasise that it is precisely its longevity what makes it worthy of the most careful preservation and promotion. Once a major empire, they say, Iran has developed a unique identity different from that of its closest neighbors.

In the Iranian collective mindset, especially that of the most orthodox Shia and the very influential clerics, the nation enjoys the highest dignity for having conquered other territories and peoples but also endured invasions and dominations from enemies and rivals, yet always remaining true and loyal to its ancient traditions and foundations. More recently, Iran owes its independence to the innumerable efforts made by the leaders of the Revolution to free the nation from the clutches of the American imperialism embodied in the Pahlavi dynasty. The country’s civilisational pride is therefore deeply ingrained in the people’s minds and very often put forward in the political discourse. Furthermore, its foreign policy is soaked by a traditional ‘regional fear’, for Iran sees itself as the guardian of true Shi’a values amidst a region dominated by Shi’a-adverse powers with superior military capabilities.

The strong resentment and hatred against the Western world in general, and the demonization of the United States in particular, appear very often in Iranian politics. Such an anti-Western narrative is very often used to cover up the regime’s economic mismanagement over the last decades, instead blaming the West for all the struggles, ills and evils of society. We must remember that, for Iranians—at least for the most religious sector of the society—the Islamic Revolution is a path that leads believers into Paradise and salvation as understood by the Shi’a. The revolution purports to redeem the peoples from the national humiliation suffered during Western dominance in the times of the Shah. Therefore, martyrdom, resistance and endurance are considered three most valuable virtues that will guarantee all kinds of enjoyments to those cultivating them throughout their lifetime.

Iran presumably decided to start a nuclear program based off several historical reasons. On one hand, in face of a strong isolation experienced during the bloody war waged against Irak—an opponent which used chemical weapons against both combatants and civilians alike—Iran began its works with the aim of further intensifying its nuclear technology developments as a means to guard against a future surprise of similar characteristics.

On the other hand we shall recall the Revolution’s need to constantly legitimate itself and maintain its status in front of the international community, thus preserving Iran’s independence from outside influence or external intervention while restoring its former greatness as a center of scientific progress. Moreover, Tehran has long claimed its need to promote a solid nuclear energy plan to ensure energy security at home and satisfy the needs of its huge domestic demand in peaceful civilian, energy and medical terms. The government emphasizes the right to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy as endowed by Iran’s membership in the Non-Proliferation treaty.

However, the most pressing issue for Iran’s security is undoubtedly the fact that five of the world’s nine nuclear powers are located nearby or directly on its borders. The theocracy claims to have substantial grounds for feeling victim of the foreign arrogance of the outside world, which has allegedly endeavored to restrict Iran’s rights to freely develop its nuclear activities by having it sign the Non-proliferation Treaty, unlike other neigboring nuclear-armed states such as Pakistan, Israel or India. This brings us to the conclusion that, even if the regime vehemently denies any interest in developing nucler weapons and rather uses the need to supply its domestic market with much needed energy resources as an excuse to keep its works running, some evidence found in recent discoveries of covert facilities and nuclear plants can confirm the vital importance for some of the regime leaders to obtain weapons in the short or medium term.

Scenarios ahead

The Persian nation is now standing on a crossroads with three different paths ahead, each one leading to a very different place. We will place them in an order, ranging from the most likely scenario to the least plausible one: (A) prolongation of diplomatic stalemate with minor tensions; (B) quick escalation of tensions and direct military confrontation, and (C) bring back the so-called ‘12 conditions’ to the bargaining table and stick to them. 

A. The most likely: Diplomatic stalemate

On May 8, exactly a year after Donald Trump's announcement of US exit from the JCPOA, President Rouhani announced that Iran would cease to perform parts of its commitments under the nuclear deal, namely the observance of the limit for its stockpile of low-enriched uranium and the compliance with the limit of heavy water reserves. Its statement included a 60-day ultimatum, addressing specifically the European State parties to the treaty and urging them to find a diplomatic solution via economic packages to ease the current oil and banking restrictions. Should they prove unable to fulfill this conditions, Rouhani warned, Iran will continue with its intended pullout from the accord through a ‘multi-phased approach’.

Europeans have recently been employing a rhetoric that has resulted in ambiguous and confusing promises to Iran, mainly due to the innumerable efforts they need to make in order to balance out a strong willingness to save the deal and the fear of a further detachment from an everyday more hostile American partner. On his side, President Rouhani has remained true to his bet on ‘strategic patience’ in the style of the Moderation and Development Party, to which he belongs, during all this time.

Nevertheless, it seems that the patience of the Iranian leadership is coming to an end with each passing day. The political elites have harshly critized its European counterparts for making lots of empty promises throughout this last year without achieving any substantial or practical outcome, specially after the U.S. decision on April 22 to put an end to the waivers on oil imports from third countries in an attempt to ‘bring oil trade to zero’. This will no longer exempt any customer engaging in oil transactions with Iran from the US-led second wave of sanctions. Moreover, Rouhani has called on the Europeans to allow Iran to repatriate its money sitting in European bank accounts, which still remain blocked as part of previous sanctions.

Without disregarding the vital importance of the E3 for Iran’s national economy and the pivotal role they play in the political scenario surrounding the country in the Middle East, it is also true that there are other strategic partners involved in this game whose existence as credible alternatives to the E3 is precisely the cause that pushes the Iranian leadership to discard a complete withdrawal and rather remain adhered to the nuclear accord. At the front of this group of Iranian oil importers are China and India, which will self-evidently ignore the effects of the recent termination of the US waivers and prosecute their purchases to satisfy their huge domestic demand. Although with weaker currencies and perhaps using more rudimentary instruments, both China and India will manage to secure those transactions in an orderly manner and will most likely help other purchasers to do the same. In fact, some voices speak of a possibility of performing oil-swap arrangements via Russia to lock oil prices and protect their finances from the high volatility of global energy prices.

Following this logic, Iran will then go ahead with its ongoing business while persuading and encouraging importers to keep buying Iranian oil despite the inability of European counterparts to meet the aforementioned ultimatum as set by President Rouhani. In paralell to this, Iran will probably threaten the remaining parts and especially the Americans with a further development of its nuclear capacities, but this will only add to a strategy that seeks to prolong the current state of affairs until the next U.S. presidential elections in 2020 take place.

B. The apocalyptic, yet no the least plausible scenario

The most apocalyptic—yet not the least plausible—scenario can be inferred from the most recent moves of US military assets after the government’s official designation of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps as a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization’ on April 8. Fist, on May 6, the Pentagon announced the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and a bomber task force on the Persian Gulf. Four days later, the Pentagon confirmed that it had sent some warships, the USS Arlington amphibious transport dock and a Patriot missile defense battery to the same region as a deterrent to Iran. Lastly, on May 12, two Saudi oil tankers and four additional Emirati ships off the coast of the Persian Gulf were sabotaged. President Trump blamed Iran for malicious behaviour targeting maritim traffic along the Gulf. More recently, Washington officials have announced a new deployment of some fighter jets and additional troops to the same territory in what they have called a ‘mostly protective measure’. This suddenly heightened tensions might result in the outbreak of renewed hostilities in the coming months.

The American public opinion does not discard a military confrontation in a close future. In fact, a poll conducted in the US between May 17 and May 20 disclosed surprising results³: more than half of the American citizens consider Iran as a ‘worrying’ or even ‘imminent’ threat. Roughly the same percentage assumes their country will go to war against Iran in the coming years. Very few civilians believe that a preemptive attack should be conducted on Iranian military interests, but roughly 80% of them are convinced that the US should respond to an attack from the side of Iranian via airstrikes or even ground troop invasions.

An undeniable fact is that there are differing views inside the White House. The National Security Advisor John Bolton and in some way also the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have always shown a maximalist approach that seeks to overthrow the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. Apparently none of them would hesitate to enter into a dire military confrontation if the situation so required. Bolton himself had already declared his intentions even before substituting his predecessor in office, Herbert McMaster. On the other hand, President Trump has used his recent meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to affirm the following: ‘Iran has a tremendous economic potential. […] It has a chance to be a great country with the same leadership. We are not looking for a regime change. I just want to make that clear. We are just looking for no nuclear weapons'⁴. This somehow spaces out his view from that of his hawkish aides. In the words of Karim Sadjadpour, a well renowned Iranian-American policy analyst, ‘What Trump articulated in Japan was another reminder that his main problem with the Iranian nuclear deal was that it was signed by Obama. Given Trump’s eagerness for a public summit and deal with Tehran, it is conceivable that Iran’s leaders could sign a more favorable deal with Trump than they did with Obama. But the pride and mistrust of Iran’s supreme leader makes him more inclined to subject his population to another year of sanctions and economic malaise rather than do a deal with Trump’.

C. The unlikely back to the negotiating table

On May 12, 2018, four days after President Trump made public his intention of withdrawal from the JCPOA, Pompeo set out a list of twelve conditions under which Washington would agree to a new agreement with Tehran. Besides addressing the termination of Iran’s participation in different conflicts throughout the Middle East, it explicitly called on Tehran to ‘stop enriching its uranium and plutonium reserves, grant IAEA unrestricted access to all sites throughout the entire country and end proliferation and testing of ballistic missiles’.

It should be noted that Trump never presented explicit and clear evidence that Iran was failing to comply with its obligation. Instead, he merely denounced the treaty as far from being minimally advantageous for American interests, once again reinforcing the idea that the Obama Administration resoundingly failed to negotiate a deal that could benefit both parts. The three European State parties also emphasized that Iranians had remained faithful to their commitment and that had been officially attested by international inspectors supervising the nuclear facilities. That was the main piece of evidence supporting Iran’s thesis of not being in a state of violation of any provision of the deal but instead strictly observing every single aspect as they were agreed upon.

Having all this in mind, there are other aspects we should look at. The war in Syria is slowly coming to an end and Al-Assad owes his victory to the strong and uninterrupted financial and logistic aid from Tehran. There is no doubt that the regime will hold him accountable for all the support provided throughout the conflict and will seek to consolidate positions around the war-torn territory, thus expanding the influences of Shia islamist ideology as promoted by the Supreme Leader and the most prominent clerics. Moreover, not only is Iran-backed Hezbollah movement present in Syria, but also it enjoys a very prominent position inside the Lebanese parliament and holds an enormous influence in the country in general terms.

All this together, in addition to the round success Tehran is enjoying in his efforts to back Houthi rebels as compared to the exorbitant cost Saudi Arabia is paying to counter the rebellion, suffices to conclude that Iran is by no means willing to get back to the conditions advanced by Pompeo in order to renegotiate a new treaty that would thwart all the efforts already made along the way. This would signify an absolute humiliation for the regime. Iran has already come too far and it would now only accept to resume negotiations if it was granted the chance to depart from a dominant diplomatic position.

Representatives from the P5+1 countries in 2015, weeks before reaching the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement [US State Department]

What the EU is doing

Among all the State parties involved in the JCPOA, the E3 are likely to be the most severely affected by the US reinforcement of sanctions given the big stake they have in the region in form of finances and investments in the oil sector, and their unwillingness to go undercover. As a result of this new decision by Washington, companies and banks doing business in Iran could see their access to the American market cut off. Among other collateral effects, the re-imposition of sanctions will cause a negative impact on the region’s trade flows, energy supplies, connectivity, security and stability. Indeed, sanctions present a special conundrum for the European counterparts: either they decide to carry on with their economic activities in Iran or they remain inside the US-led international financial circuit. They need to solve this jigsaw puzzle if they still want to secure their economic interests.

In order to do so, following the US exit, the High Representative of the European Union Federica Mogherini issued a statement bitterly regretting the US retaliation and expressing the EU’s strong commitment to enact an updated blocking statute that would enter into force on August 7. This blocking statute refers to the ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom’⁵. It basically ‘allows EU operators to recover damages arising from US extraterritorial sanctions and nullifies the effect, in the EU, of any foreign court rulings. It also forbids EU persons form complying with those sanctions’⁶. In a nutshell, this statute acts as a shield against trade wars and mitigates the impact of those sanctions on the interests of European companies doing legitimate business with Iran, thus keeping Iran’s oil and investments flowing.

The European Union considers that its Member States’ business decisions should not be determined by any kind of foreign legislation. It would never recognize such legislation applicable to European operators. However, the EU still holds to the commitment of pursuing a continued, full and effective implementation of the treaty as long as Iran also plays its part by refraining from acquiring further equipment to develop a nuclear weapon and enables monitored verification of its uranium-235 enrichment activities. The E3 considers that the agreement is delivering on its goal so far and ensuring the peaceful nature of the nuclear program.

It is hence no surprise that the three European Member States involved in the deal are determined to preserve and implement it, insisting upon the numerous benefits it entails for Iran, the Middle East and the rest of the international community. Acting on behalf of the E3, the EU has recently endeavored to take several measures in order to offset the US withdrawal of the JCPOA⁷.

i) In the first place, they seek to extend the European Investment Bank lending mandates, allowing the bank to decide strictly under the EU budget to what extent and under which conditions it will finance commercial activities in Iran.

ii) Secondly, they also attempt to encourage and promote activities by Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) willing to undertake operations in Iran.

iii) Thirdly, they purport to accelerate the activation of the Instrument In Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX). This is a ‘Special Purpose Vehicle’ acting as a clearing house or barter arrangement for Iran to conduct trade with European companies outside of the SWIFT mechanism. This mechanism was officially registered by France, Germany and the United Kingdom on January 31, 2019. It works as an alternative payment channel that facilitates legitimate trade and investment between the EU and Iran despite sanctions. It is led by the EU3 and self-evidently euro-denominated. The entity originally focused only on trade in non-sanctionable essential goods, namely medical and humanitarian, and not so much on oil-related transactions so far. It mainly addresses SMEs whose total trade volume is usually small. In principle, it has not been designed to circumvent or bypass US sanctions but rather to fight money laundering and counter the financing of illicit terrorist activities. These last aspects reinforce the European efforts to voice its disagreements on Iran’s declared support for Al-Assad in Syria and the promotion of terrorism region-wide, its multiple human rights abuses and its development of ballistic missiles.

However, in view of the technical complexities resulting in a long delay to set in motion this mechanism as well as the more immediate challenges the Union has to face in the first instance, it is very unlikely that the E.U. finds enough resources and time to effectively give a definite impulse to this apparatus before the deadline of 60 days from May 8 set by Iranians eventually expires.