A white card of Bernard Adam, Director of the Peace and Security Research and Information Group (GRIP) from 1979 to 2010.
The return of the United States to the Iran nuclear deal, announced by President Joe Biden, could have important consequences leading to appeasement in the Middle East. Signed in Vienna in 2015 by Iran, the five permanent members of the Security Council (United States, Russia, China, France and United Kingdom), as well as Germany and the European Union, this agreement aims to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions against Tehran.
In May 2018, Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from this treaty, aligning himself with the demands of his “friends”, the Israeli and Saudi leaders, and resuming an aggressive position vis-à-vis Tehran. After the Trump parenthesis, the Biden administration should resume the course of the policy initiated by President Obama who decided at the end of his last mandate to make a 180-degree turn in US-Iranian relations.
Long and complicated relations between Washington and Tehran
The history of these relationships has been very complicated for almost seventy years. In 1953, the American and British secret services staged a coup d’état in Tehran, ousting Prime Minister Mossadegh, who had nationalized Iranian oil, and strengthening the power of Shah Reza Pahlevi. The latter enjoyed strong military support from Washington throughout the Cold War, Iran becoming its main military ally in the region against the USSR.
But, by imposing a Western way of life and establishing a repressive regime, the Shah had to face the growing hostility of the population and the Islamic religious power. The 1979 revolution ousted the Shah from power and saw the establishment of the Islamic Republic. Tehran subsequently adopted a hostile policy towards the Americans for thirty-five years, the new Iranian rulers not forgiving their support for the Shah.
Relativize Iranian military power
Barack Obama justified his policy change by indicating that “Iranian military spending was only one-eighth that of Washington’s regional allies, and one-fortieth of the US military budget.”
In 2019, with a population of 84 million, Iran had military spending of $ 10 billion, accounting for 2.3% of its GDP and $ 114 per capita. By comparison, those of Saudi Arabia (35 million inhabitants) were 63 billion dollars, representing 8% of its GDP and 1,786 dollars per inhabitants. And those of Israel (9 million inhabitants) were 20 billion dollars, or 5.3% of its GDP and 2,321 dollars per capita. It should also be noted that between 2009 and 2018, Iran’s arms imports represented barely 3.5% of those of Saudi Arabia.
An undeniable nuisance capacity
The regular Iranian armed forces (350,000 soldiers including 200,000 conscripts) have lost a great deal of their capabilities, especially during the Iraq-Iran war between 1980 and 1988. They nevertheless retain sufficient resources to ensure defense against an external aggressor, but they do not would not be able to wage a war in the region.
On the other hand, the Guardians of the Revolution, the Pasdarans (170,000 men), have means, certainly reduced, but allowing to carry out destabilizing military actions. For example, using speedboats equipped with missiles, attack maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, where 25% of world oil exports pass.
In addition, the Al-Quds forces (between 5,000 and 15,000 men) are incredibly effective. Responsible for external operations, they are present militarily or financially with the Allies of Tehran: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Palestinian Hamas in Gaza, Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, and Houtis in Yemen.
Nuclear deal, key to peace in Iran
The countries which wanted to acquire nuclear weapons were motivated by their desire to protect themselves by “sanctuary” their territory against external enemies. This has been the case with India and Pakistan. As well as with Israel, Iran’s great enemy, which currently has around 80 nuclear warheads. With its nuclear program, Iran has the same motivation.
The implementation of the Iranian nuclear deal would be a big step forward towards pacifying the country. On the one hand, by preventing Tehran from having nuclear weapons. On the other hand, with the lifting of economic sanctions, the country could revive its economy. The consequence would be an increase in the power of moderate leaders and a decrease in that of radical religious, who hold their legitimacy by the existence of austerity and external threat. It could also lead to a less belligerent policy in Tehran’s external interventions.
Calming consequences in the Middle East
Another consequence of this new situation in Iran could be the facilitation of the resolution of several conflicts. Other new positions announced by President Biden could contribute to this development, such as opposition to the creation of new Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories, and the halt of certain US arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia, following the war in Yemen.
All of this could lead to further steps towards the establishment of the Palestinian state, the end of the conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq, and cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
–
