MUSCLE-FLEXING

The beginning of the year was marked by a sharp deterioration in relations between Tehran and Washington, as well as in the situation in the Persian Gulf. After it became known that the United States and its allies are planning to impose new sanctions against Iran, providing for an embargo on oil imports, the Iranian navy conducted a large-scale exercise called "Velayat-90" in the Strait of Hormuz. During the exercise, Iran successfully tested two new missiles: the Nur surface-to-surface anti-ship missile and the land-based Qader missile. The Iranian armed forces also held military exercises on the border with Afghanistan. And in February of this year, the naval forces of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) plan to hold military exercises called "Great Prophet" in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.

Emotions run high

Interestingly, conflicting statements came from Tehran about the actual course of the naval exercises and Iran's further intentions with regard to the Strait of Hormuz. At the end of last year, a member of the Iranian parliamentary commission on national security, Parviz Sarvari, reported that during the exercises in the strait, its closure will be practised. But later, the press secretary of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Ramin Mehmanparast, said that Tehran will not close the strait during the exercise. After that, Iran's First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi announced that Tehran will close the strait if the West imposes sanctions on oil imports from the Islamic Republic. At the same time, the Iranian navy commander, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, said that the military is capable of closing the waterway, if such a decision is authorized by the senior leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. But the Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i let it be known through his advisor that there will be no order to block the Strait of Hormuz.

It is quite natural that all the recent actions of Tehran, as well as contradictory statements by Iranian officials about the Strait of Hormuz (the main sea route for oil and gas export from the Persian Gulf), the northern coast of which is controlled by Iran and the southern by the US allies - the United Arab Emirates and Oman - could not leave Washington and Brussels indifferent. Especially as after the nuclear aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and another US Navy ship left the Persian Gulf at the beginning of the year, Ata'ollah Salehi, who is in change of the operational command of the Iranian army, air force and navy, demanded that Washington no longer send aircraft carriers to the shores of the Persian Gulf, threatening to take retaliatory action. The Pentagon ignored Tehran's demand, saying that the movement of US warships in the Persian Gulf complies with international law, "is intended to protect shipping in the region of crucial importance for world trade" and therefore, will not change. It should be noted that the US naval presence in the Gulf is secured by the powerful Bahrain-based US fifth fleet, whose power, coupled with that of other foreign powers, considerably exceeds the capability of the Iranian army. As proof of its intransigence on this issue, the United States began to increase dramatically its shock naval forces in the Persian Gulf. In addition, trying to put more psychological pressure on Iran, the US and Israel plan to hold an unprecedented joint military exercise on missile defence in the coming weeks. Iran, for its part, dealt another psychological blow by announcing that its scientists have successfully created and tested the first fuel rod containing uranium. Another statement by the IAEA that Iran has started enriching uranium to 20 per cent stoked the situation even more. Although Western experts were sceptical about Iran's statement on the uranium fuel rod, it still added fuel to the fire. The UN Security Council held an urgent debate on Iran's nuclear programme. A spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, Martin Nesirky, demanded that Iran prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

The situation is alarming

Despite the fact that Tehran immediately declared its readiness to continue talks on its nuclear programme, the EU does not intend to postpone the decision to ban oil imports from Iran, an issue on which the EU reached a fundamental agreement on 4 January this year. And if it was earlier planned to make this decision at the end of January, the date was changed to 23 January on the initiative of Paris - at a meeting of the EU Council at the level of foreign ministers.

According to Brussels, this is the only way to increase pressure on Tehran and force it to become more compliant. According to some experts, the most difficult thing is the implementation of this agreement, which may cause an imbalance in the economy of some member countries that are the most dependent on Iranian oil. Moreover, such a move might trigger a sharp rise in oil prices on world markets. And this will hit the economies of most countries of the EU, which is the second buyer of Iranian oil after China. However, the European Commissioner for Energy Gunther Oettinger is sure that the EU can turn to other suppliers of oil such as Saudi Arabia, which has already announced an increase in oil production. Meanwhile, the US and the EU are developing an emergency plan if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz. If oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz are terminated and tensions in the region last, the International Energy Agency is planning to release strategic reserves of 14 million barrels of oil per day to reduce the severity of high oil prices. It is also known that the Fujairah oil pipeline, which is strategically important to the UAE (with a throughput capacity of 1.5 million barrels per day) and bypasses the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, will be launched in June this year. The EU oil embargo is able to inflict a heavy blow to Iran's economy. In addition to the EU, Iran sells its oil to developing countries, China and India, as well as Japan, which depend heavily on oil exports. But after Europe refuses Iranian oil, these countries will try to get significant pricing concessions from Tehran. This practice has often been successfully used by Beijing.

It seems that by imposing a ban on the importation of Iranian oil, the West also hopes to destabilize the political situation in Iran. Possible economic difficulties may cause mass protests among Iranians. On the other hand, it may also cause a split in the ruling theocratic regime. The deterioration in relations between Washington and Tehran is supported by several more aspects. In Iran, a US citizen of Iranian origin, Amir Hekmati, was sentenced to death for espionage and subversive activities. A Tehran court charged him with cooperation with the CIA. The head of the press service of the US Department of State, Victoria Nuland, denied these allegations, saying that Washington insists that Tehran allow employees of the Swiss embassy in Iran to visit Hekmati in prison and provide him with a lawyer. In January, an Iranian nuclear scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi-Rowshan, who headed a department at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, was killed in northern Tehran. It must be remembered that in January 2010, another Iranian nuclear scientist Mas'ud Ali Mohammadi was assassinated, and in November of the same year, Fereydun Abbasi-Davani, one of the main Iranian nuclear experts, who now heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was wounded. Iran blamed the latest killing on the Israeli intelligence service Mossad.

According to some experts, the abovementioned facts show that any careless step may lead to war between the US and Iran, which are now also trying to draw their allies into this standoff. The strategic allies of Washington in this matter are Israel, Britain, France and the EU. So far, Tehran can only count on support from Russia and China, which block tough anti-Iranian sanctions at the UN Security Council, and help from some Latin American countries (Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba), which were recently visited by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. A military clash between the two groups can destabilize the entire region, and the consequences of this war will affect the South Caucasus and Central Asia.

The region is concerned

Azerbaijan is not interested in military confrontation in the region. Consistently advocating a peaceful settlement, Baku once again demonstrates its commitment to a balanced foreign policy and good neighbourly relations. Moreover, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly stated that Azerbaijan will never become a bridgehead for military strikes on Iran. Baku has no interest in the military confrontation escalating also because it may face a real demographic and humanitarian disaster, since Azerbaijan will get an influx of Azerbaijani civilians from Iran fleeing a ruinous war. Their number, according to various estimates, ranges from 22 to 30 million in this country. For Azerbaijan, which is already burdened with about one million refugees and internally displaced persons due to the aggressive policy of Armenia, it would indeed be a disaster. Central Asian countries, which will also be flooded with refugees from Iran, are not insured against such a fate either. The consequences of the ecological catastrophe for the region are also linked with the probability of military operations moving to the Caspian Sea, especially in view of Tehran's threats to carry out missile attacks on Western targets located in neighbouring countries.

Although at the tactical level, the military confrontation between the West and Iran can yield big financial dividends to Moscow because of a possible rise in oil prices, in a strategic sense, Russia is not interested in a military scenario either. For Russia, the theocratic Iran is the only reliable and powerful ally against the West in maintaining its geopolitical influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. With the establishment of a pro-Western regime in Iran, Moscow will also lose a reliable ally in determining the legal status of the Caspian Sea. To a certain extent, Iran's nuclear programme also plays into the hands of Moscow. First of all, it allows Russia to make billions in profits by cooperating with Iran in this field. Moreover, it is very frustrating and takes a lot of energy, nerves and forces from Moscow's opponents. On the other hand, a military confrontation between the West and Iran might cause a certain number of refugees from Iran to try and find refuge in the southern regions of Russia, using the South Caucasus and Central Asia as a transit point. With a huge influx of refugees, it will be extremely difficult for South Caucasus and Central Asian countries to reliably control and "lock" their borders. Iran is seen by Moscow as a real rival of Turkey in the excessive strengthening of its positions in the South Caucasus, Central Asia and the Islamic world.

Based on the latter aspect, the presence of a rigid theocratic regime in Iran is of no benefit to Ankara. Turkey, which is ruled by moderate Islamists, clearly demonstrates to Iran that the West is willing to cooperate closely with such regimes. A pro-Western Iran is also of benefit to Turkey as a potential active participant in planned mutually beneficial economic projects. Close Iranian-Armenian relations cannot leave Ankara indifferent either. The existing Iranian-Armenian "road of life" is a salvation for the Armenian economy choking in economic isolation, in which it has driven itself. Accordingly, this allows Yerevan to take a destructive position on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, because of which Turkey closed its border with Armenia. However, Ankara strongly advocates a peaceful solution to complicated relations between the West and Iran.

It should be noted that among all the regional players in this matter, Turkey, which is linked to NATO, is in the most difficult situation. But for now, despite calls from Washington, Turkey does not intend to support tougher sanctions against Iran planned by the US and the EU. Ankara stated that it respects only the sanctions that are imposed by the UN and will not follow the US and the West in this issue. But if the US and its allies are able to involve the Alliance in a military solution to the problem, the current position of Turkey will become a hostage of bloc discipline.

Strange as it may sound, Armenia may be able to benefit from regional chaos most of all, although the only magic wand now is all possible assistance from Tehran and the only "road of life" from Iran. Hostilities, at least for some time, will divert world attention from the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, putting the question of liberating the Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territories on the back burner.

But even if we do not talk about winning, Armenia has nothing in particular to lose either. Firstly, it is unlikely that the potential army of refugees from Iran will try to find refuge in Armenia, from where even the local population is migrating en masse in search of bread. Secondly, Yerevan is quite happy with both the current theocratic regime in Iran and a possible pro-Western government. The main thing is to ensure that it does not cut financial investments in the Armenian economy. The fact is that if the current Iranian regime, supporting Yerevan, helps it to survive, the pro-Western regime will also be forced to do so. Such a scenario will be played by the West in order to fully keep Armenia out of Russia's influence and to increase the number of potential transit routes of energy resources. But in this case, Armenia will have to surrender Russia, for which it has long been ready.

In any case, a possible war scenario in Iran will have an extremely negative impact on the entire region surrounding the country. Therefore, it remains to hope that the current situation will be limited to muscle-flexing.