Last week’s Camp David summit has been billed as a success story. Ties between the US and GCC member states, recently put to the test, have warmed. Without wishing to spoil the party, I think caution must be exercised.
The president has sought to reassure the region that although the lifting of sanctions would substantially swell Tehran’s coffers those funds would go toward improving the lives of the Iranian people and building new infrastructure, rather than end up in the hands of Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies. But just in case, he has pledged to defend his country’s Gulf allies against “external aggression” (read Iran’s aggression) including the potential use of military force.”
His high profile guests walked away with his commitment to closer military cooperation, a promised missile defense shield (unlikely to be operational for several years) and the fast tracking of weapons deliveries. Nothing to complain about then…or is there?
In reality, there are several pitfalls. Firstly, the formal security pact that Gulf leaderships wanted was a no-go, ostensibly because it would require a green light from Congress.
Secondly, Obama’s pledges could be overturned by his successor in 18 months without a Congressional seal or, the very least, something in writing. Can mere words seriously be considered “ironclad”? The Kingdom’s Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir revealed that counteracting Tehran’s “negative involvement in the region” was brought up during the talks, without getting down to specifics.
Thirdly, which side gets to decide what constitutes “external aggression”?
Senior Vice President of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Jon Alterman, highlighted this discrepancy. “The most important part of all of this is we do not see eye-to-eye with many of our allies on precisely what would constitute the kind of Iranian aggression that would spark an American reaction.”
And fourthly, if a GCC state were to come under attack, and US military intervention deemed necessary, what form would that take? In other words, would Obama be prepared to go the whole hog, including boots on the ground, or simply deploy a few warships or dip his Air Force’s toes in the water?
Lastly, when Obama has been tiptoeing around the Islamic State that’s currently regaining ground in Iraq and Syria; has done little to stop the Syrian regime’s killing spree and has stepped back from meaningful actions to stabilize Yemen and Libya, are we to suppose that he would be willing to go to war with Iran in defense of Gulf States — particularly as Tehran and Moscow have signed a defense pact, while China refers to Iran as “a strategic partner.”
One thing’s certain, Iran’s leaders are singing from a very different hymn sheet. While Obama’s doing his utmost to woo Gulf countries on Tehran’s behalf, just days ago, Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei condemned the Saudi-led coalition, battling to liberate Yemen from a Houthi takeover, vowing to protect “the oppressed people” of “Yemen, Bahrain and Palestine.”
And a few days earlier, Iran’s deputy chief of staff warned the US and its Gulf allies that attempts to thwart an Iranian “aid” vessel from reaching Yemen would “spark a fire” adding that “the self-restraint of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not limitless.” The Guardian has also reported that Iranian Republican Guard fired warning shots at a commercial vessel flying the flag of Singapore earlier this month, drawing UAE ships to its aid.
A further inconsistency is that while President Obama reportedly told GCC countries that “the purpose of any strategic cooperation is not to perpetuate any long-term confrontation with Iran, or to even marginalize Iran,” Khamenei is behaving as though his nation remains America’s sworn enemy.
On Saturday, he accused the US of being “the designer and supporter of terrorism,” a country that has backed the Islamic State and supports “the fake terrorist Zionist regime” and one that “seeks its own interests and will make the Gulf region insecure, if needed.”
Mending fences with the US may be beneficial to Gulf states in terms of defense systems, weapons and expanded international diplomatic clout, but they should also remain wary of White House motivations.
The bottom line is without a signed and sealed defense treaty, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies should seek military independence. As Ronald Reagan famously said, “Trust, but verify.”
