IRAN’S HORMUZ MOVE
07 02 2012
Tensions rise between the USA and Iran
To understand the latest situation in US-Iranian tensions, it is enough to scan over a few headlines. The USA has upgraded its defence concept and budget for 2012. Ahmedinejad has taken a tour of Latin America, the USA’s backyard. US discomfort did not seem to bother Latin American countries. However, from now on, everyone will learn the name Hormuz.
Iran has finally decided to play the Hormuz trump. Thus Tehran has taken a more effective step than any it had taken so far. The first concrete development relevant to an Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz was the “Velayat 90” navy drill on the 24th of December 2011. The military exercise did not only cover the Strait of Hormuz. The Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Bay of Aden and the Arabian Sea were all included in the scope of the war games. Along with the military exercise there were statement salvoes and headline duels between Tehran and Washington. However, neither side could get the other to back down.
Hormuz and Beyond
The Strait of Hormuz is a very important point of transit for world energy markets and the world trade. But there is lot more to the matter than first meets the eye.
We will hear more reporting and analyses of the Hormuz Crisis from now on. Iran is trying to take its steps regarding Hormuz as conscientiously as possible. A part of the Strait of Hormuz is Iranian territory and Iran has sovereign rights over this area. Tehran argues that Iran has a legal right to shut of the Strait of Hormuz.
This tactical move by Tehran is connected with many factors. For example 20 percent of the world energy trade, 40 percent of all carried out with tankers, passes through Hormuz. The crisis facing the world economy means that it will have great difficulty absorbing a rise or fluctuations in the price of energy. Arab countries, a significant number of which are already going through “spring” will be undoubtedly affected. The course events will take in Syria might make everyone more sensitive to new developments. Those who have seats at the UN General Assembly and those who speak and vote at the Security Council must always keep Hormuz in mind.
But with Hormuz, even more is at stake. The electoral clock has started running in the USA. Both Democrats and Republicans are worried of Tehran scoring a goal. For the present administration, as well as for all candidates contending in the election, being outdone by Ahmedinejad is very risky. There could be many political and economic complications before and after the crisis.
There is a further dimension. Dr Nimet Ahmedi, Iranian expert of the subject has provided the following analysis to the Iranian website “İrdiplomacy.ir”:
In terms of international and maritime law, there are certain passages such as the Suez Canal which are part of a country’s territory. Therefore, domestic law applies to such passages. Nasser had once nationalised the Suez Canal. There are other passages which are international, despite being with the territory of a country. The Bosporus and the Dardanelles are such straits. The Strait of Hormuz is also an international passage. There is no convention on blockading such passages.”
If Iran were to blockade the Strait of Hormuz with a sudden decision, who would the countries to be affected by this blame? This question is very important. If such an action by Iran could please some countries due to rising energy prices and make a part of the western world voice dissatisfaction due to instability and the risk of war, it may be profitable for Iran.
The opposite may of course take place. Tehran’s move could be registered as hostile. Iran may be accused of bad faith. Although Iran may be acting in its own territorial waters and continental shelf, it has to rest any move on very solid grounds.
A development which occurred on the 30th of December 2011 shows that Tehran’s strategic planning may have been correct. The US carrier USS John C. Stennis had entered the area of the Iranian naval exercises. Iranian Chief of Staff Ataullah Salehi warned the USS John C. Stennis and other US vessels not to enter the naval exercise area again and that he would not repeat a warning. Washington later stated that “no one wanted a confrontation with Iran over Hormuz and that defusing the situation was more important”.
Once the deployment of missile batteries in Gulf countries is complete, the USA’s tone might change. However the present approach of the USA shows that it does not yet see any benefit in war or in rising tensions.
If the pipeline project the USA has been working on is concluded, the USA might settle the issue of Hormuz without loss. The project foresees the access of Iraqi, Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti, Omani and UAE oil to the world market without passing through Hormuz. Should Hormuz be circumvented or lose importance, one might talk of a new conjecture and balance. Turkey might also be a highly probable route in such an attempt. The region already has oil and natural gas transit routes and pipelines which are ripe for development. One of these is the IPSA line between Iraq and Saudi Arabia that Saddam Hussein had had built to weaken Hormuz.
Of course, one should bear in mind that Tehran is trying to score a few points before the USA realises its projects relevant to the issue and that if it is really considering making a move, it has to hurry.