El Comando Sur de Estados Unidos destaca el interés iraní en la consolidación de las redes de inteligencia y financiación de Hezbolá en la región

• A lo largo de 2019 Rosneft extremó su control sobre PDVSA, llegando a comercializar el 80% de la producción, pero las sanciones estadounidenses obligaron a su marcha del país

• La llegada de efectivos de la Guardia Revolucionaria iraní se produce en medio de un despliegue naval y aéreo de EEUU en el Caribe, no lejos de las aguas de Venezuela

• Los iraníes, acuciados de nuevo por las sanciones de Washington, vuelven a país que les ayudó a burlar el cerco internacional durante la era de la alianza Chávez-Ahmadineyab

​

▲ Nicolás Maduro y el presiente iraní, Hassan Rouhani, en un encuentro en Teherán en 2015 [Hossein Zohrevand, Tasnim News Agency]

INFORME SRA 2020 / Emili J. Blasco  [versión en PDF]

En poco tiempo Venezuela ha pasado de depender de los créditos de China, a echarse en manos del sector energético ruso (como quedó especialmente de manifiesto en 2019) y luego a pedir la ayuda de los técnicos petroleros de Irán (como se ha visto a comienzos de 2020). Si los créditos públicos chinos se suponía que iban a mantener en funcionamiento el país, el auxilio de Rosneft ya solo pretendía salvar la petrolera nacional, PDVSA, mientras que la ayuda de la Guardia Revolucionaria iraní únicamente busca reactivar algunas refinerías. Cada vez quien asiste a Venezuela tiene una talla menor y el propósito es más reducido.

En apenas diez años los grandes bancos públicos chinos otorgaron 62.200 millones de dólares de créditos al gobierno de Venezuela. El último de los 17 créditos llegó en 2016; desde entonces Pekín ha desoído los golpes que Nicolás Maduro ha dado a su puerta. Aunque ya desde 2006 el chavismo había recibido también créditos de Moscú, (unos 17.000 millones de dólares, para la compra de armas a la propia Rusia), Maduro se volcó en las súplicas a Vladimir Putin cuando la ayuda china terminó. Sin querer tampoco dar más créditos, el Kremlin articuló otro modo de auxiliar al régimen que al mismo tiempo asegurara el cobro inmediato de beneficios. Así comenzó la implicación directa de Rosneft en diversos aspectos del negocio petrolero venezolano, más allá de la explotación específica de algunos campos.

Ese mecanismo tuvo especial relevancia en 2019, cuando las progresivas sanciones de Estados Unidos sobre la actividad petrolera de Venezuela comenzaron a tener un gran efecto. Para burlar las sanciones a PDVSA, Rosneft se convirtió en comercializadora del petróleo venezolano, controlando la puesta en el mercado de la mayor parte de la producción total (entre el 60% y el 80%).

La amenaza de Washington de castigar también a Rosneft hizo que esta compañía derivara el negocio a dos subsidiarias, Rosneft Trading y TNK Trading International, que a su vez dejaron esa actividad cuando Estados Unidos las señaló. A pesar de que Rosneft sirve generalmente los intereses geopolíticos del Kremlin, el hecho de que en su accionariado esté BP o fondos de Qatar obliga a que la compañía no arriesgue tan fácilmente su cuenta de resultados.

La marcha de Rosneft, que por otra parte tampoco vio sentido económico a seguir implicándose en reactivar las refinerías venezolanas, cuya parálisis ha sumido al país en una generalizada falta de suministro de carburante a la población, dejó a Maduro sin muchas opciones. Los rusos abandonaron la refinería de Armuy a finales de enero de 2020 y al mes siguiente ya había iraníes retomando el intento de ponerla en funcionamiento. En unas semanas se hacía pública la nueva implicación de Irán en Venezuela: Tarek el Assami, el dirigente chavista con mayores conexiones con Hezbolá y el mundo chií, fue nombrado ministro del Petróleo en abril, y en mayo cinco cargueros llevaron fuel y presumiblemente maquinaria de refinación de Irán a Venezuela.

El suministro no resolvía mucho (la gasolina apenas serviría para el consumo de pocas semanas) y difícilmente los técnicos iraníes, parte de ellos al menos dirigidos por la Guardia Revolucionaria, iban a poder arreglar el problema de refinación. Mientras, Teherán lograba a cambio importantes cargamentos de oro como pago a sus servicios (nueve toneladas, según la Administración Trump). En los transportes intervino la compañía aérea iraní Mahan, utilizada por la Guardia Revolucionaria en sus operaciones.

Así, ahogado por el nuevo esquema de sanciones impuesto por Donald Trump, Irán volvía a Venezuela en busca de oxígeno económico y también de colaboración política frente a Washington, como cuando Mahmud Ahmadineyad se alió con Hugo Chávez para aliviar las restricciones del primer régimen de sanciones que padecía la nación islámica.

Despliegue naval y aéreo de EEUU

La «injerencia» de Irán en el Hemisferio Occidental ya había sido mencionada, entre el elenco de riesgos para la seguridad regional, en la comparecencia del jefe del Comando Sur de Estados Unidos, almirante Craig Faller, en el Capitolio de Washington (en enero acudió al Senado y el marzo a la Cámara de Representantes, con un mismo discurso escrito). Faller se refirió sobre todo al uso que Irán hace de Hezbolá, cuya presencia en el continente se ha visto ayudada por el chavismo desde hace años. Según el almirante, esa actividad vinculada a Hezbolá «permite a Irán recoger inteligencia y llevar a cabo planes de contingencia para posibles ataques de represalia contra Estados Unidos y/o intereses occidentales».

No obstante, lo novedoso de la intervención de Faller estuvo en otros dos asuntos. Por un lado, por primera vez el jefe del Comando Sur situaba el riesgo de China por delante del de Rusia, en un contexto de creciente rivalidad entre Washington y Pekín, que también se manifiesta en la toma de posiciones de las inversiones en chinas en obras de infraestructura estratégicas de la región.

Por otro lado, anunció un próximo «aumento de la presencia militar de Estados Unidos en el hemisferio», algo que comenzó a tener lugar a finales de marzo de 2020 cuando embarcaciones y aviones estadunidenses se desplegaron en el Caribe y el Pacífico para reforzar la lucha contra el narcotráfico. En el contexto de su discurso, esa mayor actividad militar en la región se entendía como un necesario aviso hacia los países extrahemisféricos.

«Por encima de todo, en esta lucha lo que importa es la presencia persistente», dijo, «tenemos que estar presentes en el campo para competir, y tenemos que competir para ganar». En concreto, propuso más actuaciones y maniobras conjuntas con otros países de la región y la «rotación recurrente de pequeños equipos de fuerzas operaciones especiales, soldados, marineros, pilotos, marines, guardas costeros y personal de la Guardia Nacional para ayudarnos a fortalecer esas colaboraciones».

Pero la llegada de barcos de Estados Unidos cerca de las aguas de Venezuela, apenas unos días después de que el 26 de marzo se anunciara desde Nueva York y Miami la apertura de una macrocausa judicial por narcotráfico y otros delitos contra los principales dirigentes chavistas, entre ellos Nicolás Maduro y Diosdado Cabello, dio a ese despliegue militar una connotación de cerco físico al régimen chavista.

Ese despliegue dio también cierto contexto a otros dos desarrollos ocurridos poco después, ofreciendo lecturas equivocadas: la fracasada Operación Gedeón, el 3 de mayo, de un grupo de mercenarios que aseguraron tener la intención de infiltrarse en el país para Maduro (las mayores capacidades de transmisiones adquiridas por EEUU en la zona, gracias a sus maniobras, en principio no fueron empleadas en esa operación), y la llegada de los buques de Irán a finales de mes (el despliegue estadounidense hizo sospechar que Washington podía interceptar el avance de los navíos, cosa que no sucedió).

La seguridad regional americana ha tenido su foco de preocupación en el último año en Venezuela. Repasamos además la venta de armas de Rusia y España a la región, la presencia latinoamericana en misiones de paz, la droga en Perú y Bolivia y los homicidios en México y Brasil

▲ Igor Sechin, director ejecutivo de Rosneft, y Nicolás Maduro, en agosto de 2019 [Palacio de Miraflores]

INFORME SRA 2020 / Resumen ejecutivo [versión en PDF]

A lo largo de 2019, Latinoamérica tuvo varios focos de tensión –violentas protestas callejeras contra medidas económicas en Quito, Santiago de Chile y Bogotá, y contra decisiones políticas en La Paz y Santa Cruz, por ejemplo–, pero a medida que esos conflictos fueron apaciguándose (en algunos casos, solo temporalmente) emergió de nuevo el constante problema de Venezuela como epicentro de inseguridad en la región.

Reducida a mínimos la migración centroamericana a Estados Unidos por las restrictivas medidas de la Administración Trump, han sido los migrantes venezolanos quienes sobre todo han seguido llenando los arcenes de las carreteras sudamericanas desplazándose de un país a otro, sumando ya más de cinco millones de refugiados. Las dificultades que ese incremento de población conlleva para los países de acogida indujo a varios de ellos a aumentar su presión sobre el gobierno de Nicolás Maduro, aprobando en la OEA la activación del Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Recíproca (TIAR). Pero eso no empujó a Maduro fuera del poder, como tampoco la asunción en enero de 2019 por parte de Juan Guaidó del cargo de presidente encargado de Venezuela (reconocido por más de cincuenta países), el fallido golpe de mano de unos meses después o la supuesta invasión de la Operación Gedeón de mayo de 2020.

Aunque Maduro parezca estabilizado, el trasfondo geopolítico se ha ido moviendo. El año 2019 vio cómo Rosneft se afianzaba en Venezuela como brazo del Kremlin, una vez China se había alejado como aportadora de créditos. El riesgo de no recobrar todo lo prestado hizo que Rusia actuara a través de Rosneft, obteniendo el beneficio de comercializar hasta el 80% del petróleo del país. Sin embargo, las sanciones de Estados Unidos finalmente forzaron la marcha de la energética rusa, de forma que a comienzos de 2020 a Maduro no le quedó otro gran socio extrahemisférico al que acudir que Irán. La república islámica, sometida a su vez a un segundo régimen sancionador, volvía así a la estrecha relación que mantuvo con Venezuela en el primer periodo de castigo internacional, cultivada por el tándem Chávez-Ahmadineyad.

Esa presencia iraní es seguida con atención por Estados Unidos (coincide con un despliegue del Comando Sur en el Caribe), siempre alerta ante cualquier impulso que Hezbolá –proxy iraní– pueda recibir en la región. En realidad, 2019 supuso un importante salto en la disposición de los países latinoamericanos contra esa organización, pues varios de ellos la calificaron por primera vez de terrorista. Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia y Honduras aprobaron esa declaración, a raíz de cumplirse en julio el 25 aniversario del atentado contra la AMIA, atribuido a Hezbolá. Brasil y Guatemala se comprometieron a hacerlo en breve. Con ese señalamiento varios de esos países erigieron listas de organizaciones terroristas, lo que permite aunar estrategias.

La desestabilización de la región por la situación en Venezuela tiene una clara manifestación en la acogida y promoción en ese país de las guerrillas colombianas. En agosto el ex número dos de las FARC, Iván Márquez, y algún otro antiguo dirigente anunciaron, presumiblemente desde territorio venezolano, su vuelta a las armas. Tanto ese núcleo disidente de las FARC como el ELN habían comenzado a consolidarse a finales de año como grupos colombo-venezolanos, con operaciones no ya solo en la zona fronteriza de Venezuela, sino en el interior del país. Ambos grupos tienen en conjunto unos 1.700 efectivos en Venezuela, de los que casi 600 serían venezolanos reclutados, constituyendo con ello otra fuerza de choque al servicio de Maduro.

La salida rusa de Venezuela sucede en un momento de aparente menor actividad de Moscú en Latinoamérica. Ocurre así, desde luego, en el terreno de la venta de armas. Rusia, que se había convertido en un importante exportador de material militar a la región, ha visto disminuir sus ventas los últimos años. Si durante la década de oro del boom de las materias primas diversos países gastaron parte de sus importantes ingresos en la adquisición de armamento (lo que además coincidió con la propagación de la marea bolivariana, mejor relacionada con Moscú), el desplome del precio de las commodities y algunos cambios gubernamentales hicieron que en el periodo 2015-2019 Latinoamérica solo sea el destino del 0,8% del total de armas exportadas por Rusia. Estados Unidos ha recuperado su puesto de mayor vendedor al resto del continente.

España ocupa un destacado espacio en el mercado de armas, como séptimo exportador del mundo. Sin embargo, queda atrás en las preferencias de los países latinoamericanos, a los que vende menos material de defensa de lo que le correspondería por el volumen de comercio general que mantiene con ellos. No obstante, el nivel de ventas aumentó en 2019, tras un año de cifras especialmente bajas. En los últimos cinco años, España ha vendido a Latinoamérica el 3,6% de sus exportaciones armamentísticas mundiales; en ese periodo, sus principales clientes fueron México, Ecuador, Brasil, Perú y Colombia.

La mejor dotación de equipamientos militares podría hacer pensar en una mayor participación en las misiones de mantenimiento de la paz de Naciones Unidas, quizá como modo de mantener activo un Ejército, en un contexto de falta de despliegues regionales. Sin embargo, del total de 82.480 efectivos de las catorce misiones de paz de la ONU que había a comienzos de 2020, 2.473 procedían de países latinoamericanos, lo que supone solo un 3% del contingente total. Además, casi la mitad del personal era aportado por un país, Uruguay (45,5% de los efectivos regionales). Otro pequeño país, El Salvador (12%), es el siguiente en compromiso con las misiones, mientras que los grandes países están infrarrepresentados, singularmente México.

En cuanto a seguridad ciudadana, 2019 aportó la buena noticia de la reducción de los homicidios en Brasil, que descendieron en un 19,2% respecto al año anterior, en contraposición a lo ocurrido en México, donde subieron un 2,5%. Si en su primer año como presidente, Jair Bolsonaro se apuntaba un importante logro, gracias a la gestión del superministro de Seguridad Sérgio Moro (éxito empañado por el aumento de las muertes accidentales en operaciones policiales), en su primer año Andrés Manuel López Obrador incumplía una de sus principales promesas electorales y era incapaz de quebrar la tendencia al alza en los homicidios que invariablemente se ha dado anualmente a lo largo de los mandatos de sus dos predecesores.

Por lo que respecta a lucha contra el narcotráfico, en 2019 se produjeron dos hechos especialmente positivos. Por un lado, la erradicación de cultivos de coca por primera vez en el VRAEM, la zona de mayor producción de Perú. Dada su complicada accesibilidad y la presencia de los reductos de Sendero Luminoso, la zona había quedado previamente al margen de las operaciones de este tipo. Por otro lado, el cambio presidencial en Bolivia significó, según Estados Unidos, un mayor compromiso de las nuevas autoridades en combatir el cultivo ilícito de coca e interceptar el transporte de droga que llega desde Perú. En los últimos años Bolivia se ha convertido en el gran distribuidor de cocaína de la mitad sur de Sudamérica, conectando la producción peruana y boliviana con los mercados de Argentina y sobre todo Brasil, y con sus puertos exportadores hacia Europa.

▲ Venezolanos saliendo del país para buscar modo de subsistencia en algún lugar de acogida [UNHCR ACNUR]

[Descargar el PDF completo]

INFORME SRA 2020 / Presentación

La pandemia del Covid-19 ha modificado radicalmente los supuestos de seguridad en todo el mundo. La emergencia del coronavirus pasó de China a Europa, luego a Estados Unidos y enseguida al resto del Hemisferio Occidental. Ya perjudicada económicamente por su dependencia de las exportaciones de commodities desde el comienzo del parón chino, Latinoamérica fue padeciendo las sucesivas restricciones de las distintas áreas geográficas, para finalmente entrar también en una crisis de producción y consumo y de catástrofe sanitaria y laboral. Previsiblemente la región será una de las más largamente castigadas, con efectos igualmente en el campo de la seguridad.

El presente informe anual, no obstante, atiende a la seguridad regional americana de 2019. Aunque en ciertos aspectos incluye hechos de principios de 2020, y por tanto algunos primeros efectos de la pandemia, la incidencia de esta en asuntos como la geopolítica regional, las dificultades presupuestarias de los estados, el crimen organizado o la seguridad ciudadana quedan para el informe del próximo año.

En la medida en que en recientes meses otros desarrollos que en 2019 afectaron a la seguridad se mostraron de algún modo transitorios, Venezuela se mantuvo como el principal foco de inseguridad regional durante el año pasado. En el informe analizamos el regreso de Irán al país caribeño, después de que primero China y después Rusia hayan preferido no ver perjudicados sus propios intereses económicos; también constatamos la consolidación del ELN y parte de las exFARC como grupos binacionales colombo-venezolanos.

Además, destacamos el avance en el señalamiento por primera vez de Hezbolá como grupo terrorista por varios países y aportamos cifras sobre la caída de la venta de armas de Rusia a Latinoamérica y sobre la relativa poca comercialización en la región del material de defensa producido por España. También cuantificamos la aportación de efectivos latinoamericanos a las misiones de paz de la ONU, así como el éxito de Bolsonaro y el fracaso de AMLO en la evolución de los homicidios en Brasil y México. En cuanto al narcotráfico, en 2019 se dio la primera operación de erradicación de cultivos de coca en el VRAEM, la zona de Perú más complicada en la lucha antinarcóticos.

▲ 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.

[Richard Nephew, The Art of Sanctions. A View from the Field. Columbia University Press. Chichester. New York, 2018. 216 p.]

RESEÑA / Emili J. Blasco

Las sanciones internacionales suelen despertar un vivo debate entre quienes las defienden como un legítimo instrumento de la interacción entre Estados y quienes consideran que su aplicación apenas ha tenido más eficacia que la de aumentar el sufrimiento de enteras poblaciones sin culpa.

A la pregunta de si sirven para algo esas sanciones, que pueden ser de diversa índole pero que sobre todo tienen carácter económico, Richard Nephew responde que depende. Y no es una evasiva, sino en el fondo la defensa que de sus propias herramientas hace un mecánico de la diplomacia estadounidense (Nephew fue director para Irán en el Consejo Nacional de Seguridad y vicecoordinador para sanciones del Departamento de Estado): “Las sanciones no fracasan o tienen éxito. Más bien las sanciones ayudan o no a conseguir el deseado resultado final de un Estado sancionador (...) Las herramientas solo pueden tener un buen desempeño cuando son empleadas con la correcta estrategia; no se puede acusar a la sierra si falla en realizar el trabajo de un destornillador”.

Nephew no es un teórico de las sanciones, sino un “practicante”; el contenido de su libro procede de la experiencia (“Una visión desde el campo” es el subtítulo de la obra). Esa experiencia le hace ser un convencido de la utilidad de esas medidas siempre que se apliquen de modo conveniente. Básicamente pone el ejemplo de dos casos: el de Irak, donde las sanciones no lograron el objetivo buscado debido un mal planteamiento de la presión internacional, que finalmente derivó en guerra en 2003, y el de Irán, donde el régimen de medidas punitivas sobre la República Islámica tuvo su efecto y en 2015 pudo firmarse un acuerdo para frenar el programa nuclear iraní.

Activo participante en la arquitectura sancionadora a Irán, Nephew se extiende especialmente en el caso de las negociaciones con Teherán, tras abordar primero someramente el capítulo de Irak. De todo ello saca conclusiones y presenta sus propios decálogos sobre cómo las sanciones deben abordarse para que puedan resultar eficaces. En las últimas páginas trata de aconsejar cómo conducir un nuevo paquete sancionador sobre Irán, para controlar su programa de misiles y contener su actividad en el exterior a través de proxis, pero sin romper el acuerdo alcanzado (JCPOA) como ha hecho la Administración Trump; cómo gestionar la presión sobre Rusia en relación a Ucrania, y cómo confrontar la actitud de Corea del Norte. No aborda otras situaciones que el debate sobre las sanciones tiene bien presentes, como la dureza de Trump para con Cuba, en el marco de un embargo de décadas que no ha producido cambios en la isla, o el cerco sobre Nicolás Maduro en Venezuela.

Reglas para sancionar con éxito

La principal conclusión de Nephew es que “el conocimiento del oponente de uno, sus tolerancias y sus vulnerabilidades, es el predictor más importante sobre las posibilidades de éxito de una estrategia que se focaliza en sanciones (...) De hecho, para que las sanciones funcionen, uno realmente debe conocer al enemigo mejor que el enemigo se conoce a sí mismo”.

Eso es lo que, en su opinión, falló en Irak. Ciertamente las sanciones fueron efectivas, en tanto que impidieron que Sadam Husein retornara a un programa de armas de destrucción masiva, pero no evitaron una guerra. Y esto porque no se tuvo en cuenta la psicología del mandatario, dispuesto a todo tipo de sufrimiento –que traspasaba a la población, sin miedo a que esta pudiera quitarle el poder–, antes que admitir que no tenía el potente arsenal que supuestamente le encumbraba entre los líderes regionales. La comunidad internacional no entendió qué importante era para él mantener esa simulación, en su pretensión de credibilidad y prestigio, por encima de la presión de cualquier paquete de sanciones.

En el proceso iraquí, además, hubo otras deficiencias, según Nephew: desde el principio se aplicaron sanciones máximas, sin espacio para una política incremental, y a lo largo del tiempo hubo una variación del objetivo, pasando de querer evitar el rearme del régimen a plantear un cambio del régimen mismo (aunque Sadam Husein hubiera aceptado las condiciones que se le planteaban, Washington no hubiera admitido su continuidad en el poder).

Esos errores llevaron a una mayor comprensión de los mecanismos en juego, que se perfeccionaron en el trato con Irán. Nephew indica que a la hora de conocer bien el país objeto de posibles sanciones deben tenerse en cuenta sus instituciones políticas, su sistema macroeconómico y financiero, sus relaciones comerciales, sus valores culturales, su reciente historia, su demografía y el acceso de la población a fuentes externas de información. Eso permitirá identificar las vulnerabilidades y el umbral de dolor que el Gobierno de turno está dispuesto a absorber. Luego tanto las sanciones como las mismas asunciones deben ser continuamente recalibradas, siguiendo una estrategia bien definida. Es importante además que al Estado objeto de las sanciones se le presenten con claridad las condiciones necesarias para que la presión sea levantada, en el marco de una negociación de términos nítidos. Finalmente, hay que tener la disposición a auxiliar al Estado que se presiona a salir de un laberinto cuya salida tal vez no perciba, o incluso a aceptar objetivos más bajos si estos son un resultado también razonable.

El autor afirma que las tres causas más comunes del fracaso de un régimen de sanciones son: quedarse corto, pasarse de largo y objetivos confusos. Estas etiquetas pueden fácilmente aplicarse a procesos pasados, pero no es tan sencillo fijar los pasos de una diplomacia coercitiva de este tipo en conflictos en curso o que puedan ocurrir en el futuro.

Así, el mismo Nephew no tendría plenas garantías de éxito con las sanciones que sugiere para una nueva negociación con Irán con el fin de limitar su programa de misiles y su actuación a través de grupos como Hezbolá. En desacuerdo con la Administración Trump, hubiera preferido mantener el acuerdo sobre el programa nuclear de 2015 (conocido por sus siglas de JCPOA) y el consiguiente levantamiento del régimen de sanciones aplicado previamente, para pasar a otras sanciones distintas que busquen ese otro objetivo. Cierto que está por ver la utilidad del movimiento de Trump, pero es difícil creer que Teherán vaya a renunciar a esas otras actuaciones por una presión que en ningún caso sería tan internacional (China y Rusia solo se prestaron a un frente contra Irán porque en juego estaba que este país se convirtiera en potencia nuclear).

[Amil Saikal, Iran Rising: The survival and Future of the Islamic Republic. Princeton University Press. Princeton, 2019. 344 p.]

RESEÑA / Ignacio Urbasos Arbeloa

Desde su constitución en 1979 la República Islámica de Irán ha sido un actor conflictivo, aislado e incomprendido por la comunidad internacional y en mayor medida por sus vecinos regionales. Su origen, de carácter revolucionario y antagonista del modelo pro-occidental del Sha, cambió por completo la geopolítica de Oriente Medio y el papel de EEUU en la región. Tanto la Crisis de los Rehenes como la sangrienta Guerra contra el Irak de Saddam Hussein dejaron heridas muy profundas en las relaciones de Irán con el exterior. Más de 40 años después de la Revolución, el país sigue en una dinámica que imposibilita la normalización de sus relaciones internacionales, siempre bajo la amenaza de un conflicto armado o sanciones económicas. En este libro, Amin Saikal describe en profundidad la naturaleza ideológica y política del régimen de los Ayatolas con la intención de generar una mejor comprensión de las motivaciones y factores que explican su comportamiento.

En los primeros capítulos se desarrolla el concepto de gobernanza ideado por el Ayatola Imam Jomeini, conocido como Velayat-E Faqih o Gobernanza del Guardián del Islam. Un modelo defendido por una facción no mayoritaria de la revolución que logró imponerse por el carisma de su líder y la enorme represión sobre el resto de los grupos políticos. El sistema político resultante de la Revolución de 1978 trata de confluir las enseñanzas chiitas del Islam y un modelo representativo con instituciones como el Majlis (parlamento) o el Presidente que en cierta medida simula la democracia liberal occidental. Este modelo es único y nunca ha sido imitado a pesar de los esfuerzos de la República Islámica por exportarlo al resto del mundo musulmán.

En la práctica, el sistema ha demostrado someter la política iraní a la esquizofrenia, con una lucha constante entre el poder de los clérigos –Líder Supremo y Consejo de Guardianes– frente al poder ejecutivo y legislativo elegido por medio de elecciones. Esta tensión, denominada como Jihadi-Itjihadi (conservadurismo-flexibilidad) por el propio Jomeini, ha resultado ser un rotundo fracaso. La falta de claridad en las funciones que los grupos religiosos juegan en el sistema deriva en un poder ilimitado para reprimir y eliminar adversarios políticos, como el arresto domiciliario de Jatamí o Moussaoui demuestran. Esta lucha genera duplicidades a todos los niveles con la omnipresencia de la Guardia Revolucionaria Iraní (IRGC) en las fuerzas armadas, inteligencia, servicios sociales y empresas públicas. La falta de transparencia política genera corrupción e ineficiencias que lastran el desarrollo de una economía que no carece de capital humano y recursos naturales para prosperar.

En los capítulos 2 y 3 se trata la evolución del sistema tras el fallecimiento del líder Jomeini en 1988 y el fin de la guerra contra Irak. Este nuevo contexto permitió la entrada de nuevas ideas al debate político iraní. El polémico nombramiento del ultraconservador Alí Jamenei en 1989 como nuevo Líder Supremo supuso reforzar el autoritarismo y la rigidez del poder religioso, pero ahora sin el indiscutible liderazgo que ejercía Jomeini. La presidencia de Rafsanjani, un conservador pragmático, supuso el comienzo de una tendencia dentro de Irán que abogaba por normalizar las relaciones internacionales del país.

Sin embargo, fue Jatamí el que desde 1997 apostó por una reconversión del sistema hacia una democracia real que respetara los Derechos Humanos. Su apuesta personal por mejorar las relaciones con EEUU fracasó al encontrarse con una desconfianza desmesurada por parte de la Administración Bush. Ni tan siquiera la respuesta modélica de Irán a los atentados sobre las Torres Gemelas de Nueva York con una condena oficial al atentado y hasta un minuto de silencio respetado por 60.000 personas en Teherán el 13 de septiembre de 2001 fue suficiente para que G.W. Bush reconsiderara a Irán como parte del famoso Axis of Evil que constituía junto a Siria, Corea del Norte y Sudán. A pesar de lograr un crecimiento económico medio del 5% del PIB bajo su presidencia, la falta de reciprocidad por parte de la comunidad internacional generó una ruptura total entre el presidente reformista y la facción conservadora liderada por el Líder Supremo.

El periodo comprendido entre 2005 y 2013 estuvo marcado por la presidencia del ultraconservador Ahmadinejad, que terminó sin la confianza de Jamenei al fracasar en materia económica y llevar a Irán al borde del conflicto armado. Durante esta etapa el IRGC creció hasta dominar buena parte de los ministerios y el 70% del PIB de Irán. Su controvertida reelección en 2009 con acusaciones de fraude por parte de la oposición generó el movimiento verde, las mayores protestas desde 1979, que fueron duramente reprimidas.

La llegada de Rouhani en 2013 podría haber sido una ocasión histórica al alinear por primera vez desde 1988 la visión de un presidente moderado con la del Líder Supremo. Rouhani, un moderado pragmático, asumió el cargo con los objetivos de mejorar las condiciones de vida de los iraníes, reconciliar las relaciones con Occidente, incrementar los derechos de las minorías y relajar el control sobre la sociedad. En materia de política exterior, el Líder Supremo asumió la necesidad de alcanzar un acuerdo sobre el programa nuclear a sabiendas de que, en su ausencia, una mejora económica en Irán sería muy complicada. El JCPOA, aunque imperfecto, permitía acercar posturas entre Occidente e Irán. La llegada de Donald Trump hizo volar por los aires el acuerdo y con ello la sintonía entre el Líder Supremo Jamenei y Rouhani, que ahora afronta una creciente oposición conservadora al considerar su política exterior un fracaso.

Para el autor, es imprescindible comprender la batalla entre las instituciones electas y las instituciones religiosas. La política iraní funciona como un péndulo entre el dominio de las facciones conservadoras protegidas por los religiosos y las facciones reformistas aupadas por las elecciones. Si se ofrecen beneficios a los moderados reformistas cuando están en el poder, las opciones de generar un cambio político en Irán son mayores que si se trata con la misma dureza que a los conservadores, defiende Amin Saikal en el cuarto y quinto capítulo. Además, existe una correlación entre aquellos que conocen Occidente y los que no. Jamenei y Ahmadineyad, principales representantes de la línea dura jamás visitaron Europa o EEUU, mientras que Rouhani, Jatamí o Sharif dominan el inglés y la cultura occidental.

Con una población menor de 30 años que supone el 50% del total y una creciente modernización de la sociedad en Teherán, las demandas de reformas parecen imparables. Según Amin Saikal, una política intransigente con Irán cuando existe voluntad de apertura solo genera desconfianza y refuerza las posiciones más conservadoras. La política de Trump con Irán, concluye, demuestra la falta de conocimiento y comprensión de su sociedad y sistema político.

Iran Strategic Report (July 2019)

This report will provide an in-depth analysis of Iran's role in the Middle East and its impact on the regional power balance. Studying current political and economic developments will assist in the elaboration of multiple scenarios that aim to help understand the context surrounding our subject.

J. Hodek, M. Panadero.

Report [pdf. 15,5MB]

INTRODUCTION: IRAN IN THE MIDDLE EAST

This report will examine Iran's geopolitical presence and interests in the region, economic vulnerability and energy security, social and demographic aspects and internal political dynamics. These directly or indirectly affect the evolution of various international strategic issues such as the future of Iran's Nuclear Deal, United States' relations with Iran and its role in Middle East going forward. Possible power equilibrium shifts, which due to the economic and strategic importance of this particular region, possess high relevance and significant degree of impact even outside of the Iranian territory with potential alteration of the regional and international order.

With the aim of presenting a more long-lasting report, several analytical techniques will be used (mainly SWOT analysis and elaboration of simple scenarios), in order to design a strategic analysis of Iran in respect to the regional power balance and the developments of the before mentioned international strategic issues. Key geopolitical data will be collected as of the announcement of the U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo on the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran on November 2, 2018 with a projection for the upcoming years, thus avoiding a simple narration of facts, which transpired so far.

First part of this report will be dedicated to a more general analysis of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, with a closer attention to Iran's interests and influence. Then, after a closer look on the internal dynamics within Iran, several scenarios will be offered out of which some will be categorized and selected as the most probable according to the authors of this report.

From Iranian strategic perspective the Sunni-Shi‘a divide is only part of its larger objective of exporting its revolution.

▲ Escena militar de un altorrelieve de la antigua Persia [Pixabay]

ESSAY / Helena Pompeya

At a first glance it may seem that the most important factor shaping the dynamics in the region is the Sunni-Shi’a divide materialized in the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran over becoming the main hegemonic power in the region. Nonetheless, from the strategic perspective of Iran this divide is only part of its larger objective of exporting its revolution.

This short essay will analyze three paths of action or policies Iran has been relying on in order to exert and expand its influence in the MENA region: i) it’s anti-imperialistic foreign policy; ii) the Sunni-Shi’a divide; and iii) opportunism. Finally, a study case of Syria will be provided to show how Iran made use of these three courses of action to its benefit within the war.

I. ANTI IMPERIALISM

The Sunni-Shi'a division alone would not be enough to rocket Iran into an advantaged position over Saudi Arabia, being the Shi’ites only a 13% of the total of Muslims over the world (found mainly in Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq).[1] Even though religious affiliation can gain support of a fairly big share of the population, Iran is playing its cards along the lines of its revolutionary ideology, which consists on challenging the current international world order and particularly what Iran calls US’s imperialism.

Iran does not choose its strategic allies by religious affiliation but by ideological affinity: opposition to the US and Israel. Proof of this is the fact that Iran has provided military and financial support to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Palestine, both of them Sunni, in their struggle versus Israel.[2] Iran’s competition against Saudi Arabia could be understood as an elongation of its anti-US foreign policy, being the Saudi kingdom the other great ally of the West in the MENA region along with Israel.

II. SUNNI-SHI’A DIVIDE

Despite the religious divide not being the main reason behind the hegemonic competition among both regional powers Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shi’a), both states are exploiting this narrative to transcend territorial barriers and exert their influence in neighbouring countries. This rivalry materializes itself along two main paths of action: i) development of neopatrimonial and clientelistic networks, as it shows in Lebanon and Bahrain[3]; ii) and in violent proxy wars, namely Yemen and Syria.

a. Lebanon

Sectarian difference has been an inherent characteristic of Lebanon all throughout its history, finally erupting into a civil war in 1975. The Taif accords, which put an end to the strife attempted to create a power-sharing agreement that gave each group a political voice. These differences were incorporated into the political dynamics and development of blocs which are not necessarily loyal to the Lebanese state alone.

Regional dynamics of the Middle East are characterised by the blurred limits between internal and external, this reflects in the case of Lebanon, whose blocs provide space for other actors to penetrate the Lebanese political sphere. This is the case of Iran through the Shi‘ite political and paramilitary organization of Hezbollah. This organization was created in 1982 as a response to Israeli intervention and has been trained, organized and provisioned by Iran ever since. Through the empowerment of Iran and its political support for Shi’a groups across Lebanon, Hezbollah has emerged as a regional power.

Once aware of the increasing Iranian influence in the region, Saudi Arabia stepped into it to counterbalance the Shi’a empowerment by supporting a range of Salafi groups across the country.

Both Riyadh and Tehran have thus established clientelistic networks through political and economic support which feed upon sectarian segmentation, furthering factionalism. Economic inflows in order to influence the region have helped developed the area between Ras Beirut and Ain al Mraiseh through investments by Riyadh, whilst Iranian economic aid has been allocated in the Dahiyeh and southern region of the country.[4]

b. Bahrain

Bahrain is also a hot spot in the fight for supremacy over the region, although it seems that Saudi Arabia is the leading power over this island of the Persian Gulf. The state is a constitutional monarchy headed by the King, Shaikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, of the Sunni branch of Islam, and it is connected to Saudi Arabia by the King Fahd Causeway, a passage designed and built to prevent Iranian expansionism after the revolution. Albeit being ruled by Sunni elite, the majority of the country’s citizens are Shia, and have in many cases complaint about political and economical repression. In 2011 protests erupted in Bahrain led by the Shi’a community, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates stepped in to suppress the revolt. Nonetheless, no links between Iran and the ignition of this manifestation have been found, despite accusations by the previously mentioned Sunni states.

The opposition of both hegemonic powers has ultimately materialized itself in the involvement on proxy wars as are the examples of Syria, Yemen, Iraq and possibly in the future Afghanistan.

c. Yemen

Yemen, in the southeast of the Arabian Peninsula, is a failed state in which a proxy war fueled mainly by the interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran is taking place since the 25th of March 2015. On that date, Saudi Arabia leading an Arab coalition against the Houthis bombarded Yemen.

The ignition of the conflict began in November 2011 when President Ali Abdullah Saleh was forced to hand over his power to his deputy and current president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi (both Sunni) due to the uprisings product of the Arab Spring.[5]

The turmoil within the nation, including here al-Qaeda attacks, a separatist rising in the south, divided loyalties in the military, corruption, unemployment and lack of food, led to a coup d’état in January 2015 led by Houthi rebels. The Houthis, Shi‘ite Muslims backed by Iran, seized control of a large territory in Yemen including here the capital Sana’a. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-majority nations are supporting the government.

Yemen is a clear representation of dispute over regional sovereignty. This particular conflict puts the Wahhabi kingdom in great distress as it is happening right at its front door. Thus, Saudi interests in the region consist on avoiding a Shi’ite state in the Arabian Peninsula as well as facilitating a kindred government to retrieve its function as state. Controlling Yemen guarantees Saudi Arabia’s influence over the Gulf of Aden and the Strait of Baab al Mandeb, thus avoiding Hormuz Strait, which is currently under Iran’s reach.

On the other hand, Iran is soon to be freed from intensive intervention in the Syrian war, and thus it could send in more military and economic support into the region. Establishing a Shi’ite government in Yemen would pose an inflexion point in regional dynamics, reinforcing Iran’s power and becoming a direct threat to Arabia Saudi right at its frontier. Nonetheless, Hadi’s government is internationally recognized and the Sunni struggle is currently gaining support from the UK and the US.

III. OPPORTUNISM

The Golf Cooperation Council (GCC) is a political and economic alliance of six countries in the Arabian Peninsula which fail to have an aligned strategy for the region and could be roughly divided into two main groups in the face of political interests: i) those more aligned to Saudi Arabia, namely Bahrain and UAE; ii) and those who reject the full integration, being these Oman, Kuwait and Qatar.

Fragmentation within the GCC has provided Iran with an opportunity to buffer against calls for its economic and political isolation. Iran’s ties to smaller Gulf countries have provided Tehran with limited economic, political and strategic opportunities for diversification that have simultaneously helped to buffer against sanctions and to weaken Riyadh.[6]

a. Oman

Oman in overall terms has a foreign policy of good relations with all of its neighbours. Furthermore, it has long resisted pressure to align its Iran policies with those of Saudi Arabia. Among its policies, it refused the idea of a GCC union and a single currency for the region introduced by the Saudi kingdom. Furthermore, in 2017 with the Qatar crisis, it opposed the marginalization of Qatar by Saudi Arabia and the UAE and stood as the only State which did not cut relations with Iran.

Furthermore, the war in Yemen is spreading along Oman’s border, and it’s in its best interest to bring Saudi Arabia and the Houthis into talks, believing that engagement with the later is necessary to put an end to the conflict.[7] Oman has denied transport of military equipment to Yemeni Houthis through its territory.[8]

b. Kuwait

A key aspect of Kuwait’s regional policy is its active role in trying to balance and reduce regional sectarian tensions, and has often been a bridge for mediation among countries, leading the mediation effort in January 2017 to promote dialogue and cooperation between Iran and the Gulf states that was well received in Tehran.[9]

c. Qatar

It has always been in both state’s interest to maintain a good relationship due to their proximity and shared ownership of the North/South Pars natural gas field. Despite having opposing interests in some areas as are the case of Syria (Qatar supports the opposition), and Qatar’s attempts to drive Hamas away from Tehran. In 2017 Qatar suffered a blockade by the GCC countries due to its support for Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and militant groups linked to al-Qaeda or ISIS. During this crisis, Iran proved a good ally into which to turn.. Iran offered Qatar to use its airspace and supplied food to prevent any shortages resulting from the blockade.[10] However as it can be deduced from previous ambitious foreign policies, Qatar seeks to diversify its allies in order to protect its interests, so it would not rely solely on Iran.

Iran is well aware of the intra-Arab tensions among the Gulf States and takes advantage of these convenient openings to bolster its regional position, bringing itself out of its isolationism through the establishment of bilateral relations with smaller GCC states, especially since the outbreak of the Qatar crisis in 2017.

IV. SYRIA

Iran is increasingly standing out as a regional winner in the Syrian conflict. This necessarily creates unrest both for Israel and Saudi Arabia, especially after the withdrawal of US troops from Syria. The drawdown of the US has also originated a vacuum of power which is currently being fought over by the supporters of al-Assad: Iran, Turkey and Russia.

Despite the crisis involving the incident with the Israeli F-16 jets, Jerusalem is attempting to convince the Russian Federation not to leave Syria completely under the sphere of Iranian influence.

Israel initially intervened in the war in face of increasing presence of Hezbollah in the region, especially in its positions near the Golan Heights, Kiswah and Hafa. Anti-Zionism is one of Iran’s main objectives in its foreign policy, thus it is likely that tensions between Hezbollah and Israel will escalate leading to open missile conflict. Nonetheless, an open war for territory is unlikely to happen, since this will bring the UyS back in the region in defense for Israel, and Saudi Arabia would make use of this opportunity to wipe off Hezbollah.

On other matters, the axis joining Iran, Russia and Turkey is strengthening, while they gain control over the de-escalation zones.  

Both Iran and Russia have economic interests in the region. Before the outbreak of the war, Syria was one of the top exporting countries of phosphates, and in all likelihood, current reserves (estimated on over 2 billion tons) will be spoils of war for al-Assad’s allies.[11]

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps took control of Palmira in 2015, where the largest production area of phosphates is present. Furthermore, Syria also signed an agreement on phosphates with Russia.

Iran has great plans for Syria as its zone of influence, and is planning to establish a seaport in the Mediterranean through which to export its petroleum by a pipeline crossing through Iraq and Syria, both under its tutelage[12]. This pipeline would secure the Shi’ite bow from Tehran to Beirut, thus debilitating Saudi Arabia’s position in the region. Furthermore, it would allow direct oil exports to Europe.

In relation to Russia and Turkey, despite starting in opposite bands they are now siding together. Turkey is particularly interested in avoiding a Kurdish independent state in the region, this necessarily positions the former ottoman empire against the U.S a key supporter of the Kurdish people due to their success on debilitating the Islamic State. Russia will make use of this distancing to its own benefits. It is in Russia’s interest to have Turkey as an ally in Syria in order to break NATO’s Middle East strategy and have a strong army operating in Syrian territory, thus reducing its own engagement and military cost.[13]

Despite things being in favour of Iran, Saudi Arabia could still take advantage of recent developments of the conflict to damage Iran’s internal stability.

Ethnic and sectarian segmentation are also part of Iran’s fabric, and the Government’s repression against minorities within the territory –namely Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis- have caused insurgencies before. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States aligned with its foreign policy, such as the UAE are likely to exploit resentment of the minorities in order to destabilized Iran’s internal politics.

The problem does not end there for Iran. Although ISIS being wiped off the Syrian territory, after falling its last citadel in Baguz[14], this is not the end of the terrorist group. Iran’s active role in fighting Sunni jihadists through Hezbollah and Shi’ite militias in Syria and Iraq has given Islamist organization a motivation to defy Tehran.

Returning foreign fighters could scatter over the region creating cells and even cooperating with Sunni separatist movements in Ahwaz, Kurdistan or Baluchistan. Saudi Arabia is well aware of this and could exploit the Wahhabi narrative and exert Sunni influence in the region through a behind-the-scenes financing of these groups.

Iran Country Risk Report (June 2019)

After some months of implementation, the re-imposed US sanctions against Iran are seriously affecting Iranian economy and forcing disputed political and even military reactions. The present report attempts to provide an analysis of Iran by addressing: the consequences of sanctions, the current and future state of its energy sector, the internal situation of the country, and the future prospect of the Iran-US relations.

C. Asiáin, M. Morrás, I. Urbasos

Report [pdf. 14,1MB]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The US unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, reshaped the Iranian domestic and international reality. On the one hand, the JCPOA enabled Iran to increase its GDP above 7% in the period of 2016-2018, more than double its oil exports and maintained President Rouhani in office after the 2017 elections. On the other hand, the US reimposition of the previously lifted sanctions demonstrated the deep vulnerabilities of the Iranian economy and its huge diplomatic isolation.

US sanctions will affect the whole of Iran’s foreign relations due to its extraterritorial nature. The EU will try to avoid its effect through legal protection of its companies and citizens with mechanisms such as the SPV, whose scope and effectivity is yet to be proved. China, as it is less exposed to the US financial and political influence, will be able to better circumvent sanctions but still far from being totally unaffected. Other countries such as India, Turkey or Russia will find difficulties to handle secondary sanctions, but will be able to maintain a certain degree of trade with the Islamic Republic. Japan or South Korea will have to follow US demands because of its strategic alliance in the Asia-Pacific region and resume energy imports and investments.

The Iranian economy is expected to enter into recession during 2019, GDP growth is expected to be -4.5% and unemployment rate will increase to the 15.4%. This economic hardship will concentrate the political debate in the 2020 legislative and 2021 presidential elections, whose result will determine if a moderate or hardliner political faction seizes power. Social unrest from ethnic minorities and opposition is expected to rise if the economic conditions do not improve, challenging the current political equilibrium of the country.

The energy sector will be deeply affected by US sanctions as it banned all countries from investing and purchasing Iran’s energy products. Sanctions are expected to reduce Iran oil exports to 1million barrels a day from the 2017 levels of 2.4 mbdp, decreasing governmental revenues drastically and freezing most foreign investments. The lack of FDI and technology will aggravate the problems of the Iranian energy sector with possible irreversible effects depending on the sanctions duration.

US-Iran relations are expected to worsen at least until the US 2020 Presidential elections, when a more dialoguing candidate could substitute the hawkish Trump administration. The United States is expected to maintain its current strategic alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel, whose common goal of pressuring Iran can have unexpected consequences for the Middle East. Domestic politics in Iran, US, Israel and Saudi Arabia will play a major role in the evolution of the events.

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.