Escalation by the US and Iran could rapidly result in a catastrophic collision, due either to deliberate action or miscalculation, the International Crisis Group says in a conflict alert. The think tank urges "both parties and outside actors [to] take urgent steps" to avoid war.
The group says the Trump administration has provoked most of the tensions by doubling down “on its efforts to strangle Iran’s economy” after withdrawing from the 2015 deal limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions.
The US “has designated [Iran’s] Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organisation” and deployed warships, bombers, and missile defence systems to the region “to counter unspecified ‘Iranian threats’”, the crisis group says.
“Without offering proof, US officials claim that Iran has also given license to its regional proxies to target US interests.”
The group says Iran has responded by dubbing US forces in the region "terrorists", declared it would cease to abide by a commitment in the nuclear deal, and warned it would take further steps if its other signatories – Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia – do not deliver sanctions relief. Iran has threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz through which regional oil and gas are exported, and to retaliate for attacks on its interests.
‘Maximum pressure’
While the US claims it employs “maximum pressure” to force Iran to resume negotiations over the nuclear deal and other issues, Iran could calculate that disrupting Saudi and Emirati oil exports could enable it to negotiate “with a stronger hand”.
Both countries, the Crisis Group states, are playing a “dangerous” game that could result in war. To de-escalate, the group calls on the US to “tone down the rhetoric” and compromise, and other nuclear deal signatories to help Iran to export oil in order to meet the needs of its populace.
Tensions have spiralled since four tankers anchored off the UAE were sabotaged and two Saudi oil pumping stations on a pipeline were struck by drones. US officials have suggested Iran was directly or indirectly responsible for the first incident. Tehran has denied blame.
Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who receive marginal Iranian support, claimed to have carried out the second attack in retaliation for the Saudi-led war devastating their country.
Emirati foreign minister Anwar Gargash said: "We'll do all we can to not just avoid war, but de-escalate." However, he blamed Iran for the crisis, maintaining rather than reducing tension.
Administration hawks
To counter administration hawks who have precipitated the confrontation, US ambassador to Riyadh John Abizaid said there should be a "thorough investigation" of the incidents and called for "reasonable responses short of war". Abizaid is a former army general who commanded US troops in the Middle East from 2003 to 2007.
US national security adviser John Bolton, who openly calls for regime change in Tehran, is seen as the chief culprit behind the current escalation. Veteran regional commentator Helena Cobban, writing on the Mondoweiss website, brands Bolton an "extreme hawk" who seemed to be setting the scene "for a big – and potentially extremely damaging – showdown between the United States and Iran".
She suggests the attacks on ships “might well have been undertaken by the anti-Tehran provocateurs of the MEK [Mujahadeen-e-Khalq]” with which Mr Bolton has been associated. The aim would be push the Emiratis and Saudis into “an anti-Iran ‘punishment’ raid” that would result in US military involvement.
