Maritime Geopolitics in the Middle East
A Catalyst for Regional Transformation
(Part 1)
Assertiveness and timing are hallmarks of Hamas's continuing attack against Israel, which may be explained by three interconnected strategic factors of paramount importance. This discussion seeks to go beyond a simple recounting of facts by exploring the deep changes taking place in the Gulf area and the Eastern Mediterranean, all the while avoiding overly reasonable yet emotionally motivated responses.
The United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have reached a trilateral agreement that might lead to the permanent imprisonment of Iran and Hamas, given their precarious positions. However, three strategically important ports in the marine sphere must be expertly administered for this undertaking to be carried out. Finally, this paper delves into the long-term effects of the Obama administration's strategic pullout of US armed forces from the Middle East.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) official status as Iran's international wing is vital because of the perilous location of the country. One possible explanation for the Middle East's persistent bloodshed is the geographical conditions that encourage a never-ending cycle of retaliation. Ideological speculations on the possibility of achieving peace in the Middle East have often eclipsed the relevance of geography. Even while they intend well, these discussions have often ignored the constraints of geopolitical mapping in practice. Famously, "the path to perdition is sometimes bordered with noble motivations" serves as a warning.
Saudi Israeli-US Peace Agreement:
A major change in the strategic dynamics has occurred, precipitated by the impending peace accord between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and this change has given rise to the latest Hamas attack. It is crucial to evaluate the agreement's consequences for efforts to limit Iran and Hamas. The main cause of this occurrence could be the future military and security promises made by the US to Saudi Arabia. There has been an increase in aid since an unofficial maritime embargo has been put in place.
The Saudi Arabia-Israeli relationship has long been examined through the prism of Saudi Arabia's larger foreign policy goals, which are closely tied to its position towards the US. Saudi Arabia's position on Israel has been an important part of its regional strategy in tandem with the US for quite some time. This viewpoint is particularly helpful for making sense of the Saudi government's drive for stronger and more autonomous regional ties and involvement. During Obama's presidency, the United States started to withdraw from the area, which accelerated this trend.
The Saudi government finally realized that the US was not a reliable ally it could rely on to always have its back. The body therefore decided to take a different tack from the United States in regional geopolitics and prioritize its efforts accordingly. A chance to reignite US involvement in the area was given by the Trump administration. United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco all saw an improvement in diplomatic relations with Israel as a consequence of the Abraham Accords and the successful transfer of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Military involvement was insufficient to fulfil Saudi Arabia's post-WWII goal of securing permanent security guarantees from the US.
United States & crisis:
The US's decision to not back Egyptian President Mubarak during the Arab Spring is a classic case of its retreat from the area, especially about its regional friends. Claims of chemical weapon usage led the US to back down from its "Red Line" ultimatum to the Syrian regime. The United States government and regional authorities had a longtime understanding that had guaranteed stability in the area and the security of ruling regimes in return for oil security. However, the Obama administration's initiatives shattered this accord. Competing regional powers have turned the resulting power vacuum into a battlefield.
U.S. energy independence, made possible by the shale revolution, has allowed for a dramatic change in American foreign policy, sometimes called the "pivot." China rose to prominence on the world stage at the same time that the US redirected more of its resources to Asia.
The pervasive feeling of vulnerability and neglect is likely the root cause of the ongoing conflicts in the area. A potentially disastrous impression of a Western alliance that is weak and fractured, without U.S. direction and unwilling to fulfil its commitments, has been fostered by the disorganized pullout from Afghanistan. Each person's subjective view of a situation is crucial in determining its outcomes. These troubling facts put a strain on our government leaders, who may become too idealistic in their response, endangering the safety of our nation.
With the restoration of geostrategic certainty, this historical perspective comes full circle and is applicable again. Saudi Arabia has been requesting security and military guarantees from the US in exchange for its participation in a peace deal with Israel. These promises are like a modernized version of the US-Saudi alliance that has existed since the end of WWII and the Gulf area.
Photo by Haley Black: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-people-walking-on-street-2396134/
Implementing this truce would have put Iran at a severe disadvantage in its confrontation with Saudi Arabia and in the region. With Saudi Arabia pursuing diplomatic discussions with the US and Israel, Hamas faced an impending state of isolation and a decrease within its limited influence. Plus, Hamas's main rival in the West Bank, the Palestinian National Authority, may have gained something from this deal as well. The inclusion of the Abraham Accords in this analysis highlights the seriousness of the potential seclusion and incarceration. The geopolitical ramifications of the Abraham Accords for Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas are just as substantial as their economic importance since they have brought the Gulf nations into the Eastern Mediterranean security framework. Note that Israel has control over the land along the Eastern Mediterranean coastline that is used as Gaza's main seaport. Egypt has robust diplomatic relations with other Gulf states and exercises considerable control over a vital land corridor into the Gaza Strip.
By uniting Shia Iran and Hezbollah against Sunni Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the convergence of challenges to major strategic objectives shows that sectarian divisions and competition have been transcended. To thwart the expected diplomatic breakthrough and the consequent formation of a new regional security framework, Hamas has perpetrated substantial acts of violence in support of this alliance. It seems that starting a regional crisis that goes beyond the borders of the West Bank is the goal.
The intricate network of friendships:
The intricate geopolitical maneuvers, intricate web of alliances, and ever-changing strategic terrain may be responsible for the situation's growing instability. As Hamas resorted to violence to block the continuing diplomatic advances that threatened its established position, the present situation in the region is marked by an immediate risk of a wider and perhaps disastrous conflict.
Due to the advent of this complicated hazard scenario, traditional lines of loyalty have become more porous. An important change from previous tendencies is the seeming convergence of Shia and Sunni interests in the region, which has been a contentious issue for some time. Sunni terrorist groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas have formed an alliance with Iran and its armed proxies Hezbollah. The coalition transcends religious and sectarian lines, driven by regional power dynamics and a refusal to accept the changing geopolitical reality.
A newly formed feeling of solidarity, prompted by a shared sense of urgency and the realization that their common interests are at danger, may explain the rise in violent crime and social unrest. The future course of events in the Middle East is currently a mystery even to the most seasoned observers in the field. Because it disturbs the delicate power balance in the region, every strategic move in geopolitics has far-reaching consequences.
Also, these changes can have consequences that are far-reaching from where they are right now. The conflict's worrisome escalation has global consequences on a great scale. The present instability's result is intricately related to the global energy market's stability, the security of vital maritime routes, and the delicate balance of global geopolitics.
Rather than being limited to a territorial dispute, the recent Hamas attack on Israel might be seen as a sign of wider disturbances within the regional and global system. As new realities arise and old alliances change, the complex web of power relations and violent deeds in the Middle East continues. As a result, people across the world have to figure out how to make sense of a complex mystery. These shifts are set to reshape existing alliances and provide a challenge to world leaders in an ever-changing geopolitical environment. Their effects are predicted to have far-reaching effects on the course of history.
The use of maritime geopolitics as a constraining factor.
The complex dynamics of maritime geopolitics and the United States' security obligations to Saudi Arabia caused major shifts in the regional geopolitical scene. That is why limiting Iran's influence became the top priority in the region.
The Abraham Accords and the projected Saudi Israeli peace pact, seen only from a geostrategic lens, seem to have set the stage for a web of alliances centering on the United States. The goal of this network is to gain control or influence over the Suez Canal, the Straits of Bab Al Mandab, and the Straits of Hormuz, which are strategically important waterways. This course of action might cut Iran off from its vital continental strongholds in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would also cut off its land bridge in Iraq, which now stretches into Lebanon and Syria. Possible entry points to the Eastern Mediterranean area are within Hezbollah's reach. When looking at their strategic capabilities, Iran and Hamas are lacking. Their status within the regional hierarchy has not altered, despite their tactical victories. They could have avoided using disproportionate force and the possible development of the war in the region if they had instead used diplomatic and political methods to maintain their positions when the going became easier.
There is a present lack of political and diplomatic efficiency, which affects the effectiveness of the reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which is being assisted by China and largely held in Baghdad. Perhaps Iran saw this reunion to lessen the blow of sanctions and geopolitical encirclement, hoping to ease tensions and pave the way for stability again. It seems that Iran has also determined that the developments in the regional environment would significantly and irreparably harm its relative strategic interests, therefore weakening its position. This means that Iran has decided to stop taking part in the peace talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran that China is mediating. Desert environments in the Middle East are inherently unstable, and China is now facing a geopolitical crisis of historic proportions in this area. Given the ever-changing nature of the Middle East's conflicts, the future of the region's connectivity, commerce, and investment opportunities is far from assured. China may reevaluate its involvement in the region's less crucial energy and port sectors, but it seems it is leaning toward a non-interventionist posture, letting the disputing parties settle their issues on their own.
Continued Iranian Concerns and the Effectiveness of Hybrid Attacks:
Iranian history is complex and marked by a long struggle against what is often called "centrifugal claustrophobia." This feeling has persisted through all the country's political upheavals. Because of this long-standing belief, Iran has worked hard to shift the focus of its offensive and defensive activities away from its mostly Persian core. As the country's defensive posture demonstrates, the existence of several ethnic and sectarian groupings in Iran exacerbates this innate dread. A quick look at the map provides some background information for this issue. Persian Shiites make up the largest religious group in Iran, making up over 92% of the population. A large percentage of this religious and ethnic majority calls the city of Tehran home. The target Center is located in an area with a wide variety of ethnic groups, some of whom may be aggressive. Most of these peoples are Sunni Muslims who have not left the legally recognized boundaries of modern-day Iran. Most Iran's oil comes from the Arab area in the southwest, close to the Gulf. About 65 percent of Iran's total oil comes from this region.
Iran has increased its regional influence via the employment of both persuasive and coercive tactics. The intentional convergence of several Shia national organizations gives this body an effect that extends well beyond its geographical boundaries. Approximately 205 million people, or about 10% of the world's Muslim population, call a region bordering Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon along the Eastern Mediterranean home. This area also includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Cyprus, the easternmost border of the European Union, is around 200 km distant from this geographical area. Iranian soft power can more effectively activate local militias, connect with the mostly receptive population, and exercise influence inside the region because of Iran's beneficial geographical location. As a result, Iran's Shia multiethnic militias have grown substantially, and they now boast a formidable force that includes around 160,000 veterans of the battlefield.
Successful outcomes have been achieved by Iran's Hybrid Warfare tactic. A combination of religious aspects, strategic branding, resistance to Western values, and the employment of armed militias, proxies, and opportunistic coalitions that are well-trained and disciplined constitute this method. In its diplomatic dealings, Iran has always employed sectarian language to further Persian nationalist aims, a strategy informed by its historical ties to the Ottoman Empire. Iran has consolidated its political power in Lebanon and Iraq via the use of coercion and military force over many decades. The constant coordination of hard and soft power methods has allowed us to achieve this. This success has been made possible by the use of democratic processes to form political parties that are well-represented in Iraqi and Lebanese legislatures, with the help of committed indigenous militias.
(to be continued)
Keywords:
Maritime geopolitics
Middle East
Hamas
Regional transformation
United States
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
Geopolitical mapping
Obama administration
Saudi-Israeli-US Peace Agreement
Abraham Accords
Sectarian divisions
Hybrid Warfare
){kind=link}