Hormuz Peace Endeavor, Shifting From Idealistic Plans To Realistic One

Above Photo: From Ahtribune.com

Iran’s new security plan for the region, “Hormuz Peace Endeavor”, demonstrates the realism in Iranian foreign policy and departs from idealism in past security plans.

Iran’s plan for peace and stability in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, titled “Coalition of Hope,” means the “Hormuz Peace Initiative” was presented at the UN General Assembly.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, at the seventy-fourth session of the UN General Assembly, said,” The security doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on the maintenance of peace and stability in the Persian Gulf and providing freedom of navigation and safety of movement in the Strait of Hormuz. Recent incidents have seriously endangered such security. Security and peace in the Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz could be provided with the participation of the countries of the region and the free flow of oil and other energy resources could be guaranteed, provided that we consider security as an umbrella in all areas for all the countries.”

According to the plan presented by the Iranian President, it can be concluded that Iran has recognized the role of the UN and the role of the Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council in its peace plan. Recognition of the role of the United Nations and permanent members of the Security Council in resolving regional crises had already been emphasized in Security Council Resolution 598.

According to paragraph 8 of resolution 598, to contain tensions in the Persian Gulf, provide energy security and prevent accidental casualties resulting from military conflict, the formation of a “Contact Group” consisting of eight Gulf States and five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council is essential.

Iran had already unveiled two regional security plans called the “Regional Dialogue Forum” and the “non-aggression pact.”

Iran’s plan, called the “Regional Dialogue Forum”, refers to Barry Buzan’s approach. Buzan offers a definition of “regional security complex.” According to Barry Buzan’s approach, the Persian Gulf region is a security complex, as the Persian Gulf region has geographical proximity and a pattern of friendship and hostility between regional governments.

Non-aggression treaties have historically been less successful in preventing conflicts between countries, especially when there are conditions for breach of these treaty obligations.

Some failed non-aggression treaties include the Kellogg–Briand Pact was signed in the post-World War I years. Purpose of the Kellogg–Briand Pact was to illegalize the war to resolve international disputes.

Another non-aggression treaty was Nazi Germany – the Soviet Union treaty, which was terminated by Hitler’s invasion of the former Soviet Union in 1941.

Given the historical circumstances of the failure of non-aggression treaties in previous years, Iran’s proposal to form a “regional dialogue forum” and “non-aggression pact” was not accepted by all Gulf States.

In fact, Iran’s plans for collective security, consisting of the countries of the region called “endogenous security” were not welcomed by the countries of the region, because the success of these projects requires at least some degree of security convergence between the countries in the region.

The central point of the “Hormuz Peace Endeavor” is to emphasize the balance of power.

In fact, Iran will have to form new coalitions in order to create a power balance against the United States and brings other major powers, including Russia and China, to work together to create a balance of power against the United States and the US Arab allies in the Persian Gulf.

The key question is, why is Iran pursuing a new plan for security in the Persian Gulf?

First, Iran’s earlier plans for regional security called “regional dialogue forum” and “non-aggression pact” were not welcomed by regional Arab countries. Mohammad Javad Zarif tried to pursue these plans with regional trips, but the trips did not work.

The second reason is that Iran’s security plans came at a time of heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf. Under these circumstances, other plans were put forward by the US, Russia, France, and the UK for the security of the Persian Gulf, and one of the most serious was the US naval coalition. Therefore, the Iranian plan was not much considered.

There was also another plan by Russia for Persian Gulf security. The Russian plan has a “Supervisor” role for transnational powers. In Russia’s plan, the region’s security is secured by regional countries, and transregional powers have only a Supervisor role, and this is in contrast to the US plan.

The third reason for ignoring Iran’s earlier plans was the internationalization of the Persian Gulf issue due to increased tensions in the region, while the Iran plan had a greater role for regional countries than international power. At the same time, the US announced its coalition (U.S.-led maritime coalition) with the presence of more than 70 countries.

The fourth reason is that the security of the Persian Gulf region was not linked to other security areas considered by the US. The United States is working to link security in the Persian Gulf to Bab al-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea so that it can have a smoother understanding of Iran’s threats and not limit the scope of threats to the Persian Gulf. According to a statement issued by the US-led Centcom (US Central Command), the US naval coalition aims is to boost maritime stability, ensure safe passage and reduce tension in the Straits of the Strait of Bab al-Mandeb and the Oman Sea.

In fact, the Hurmuz Peace Endeavor is trying to create a “security network” with the presence of regional countries and is in opposition to the US naval coalition. The US alliance is based on the Zero-sum game, which means winning or losing against Iran.

Iran’s President believes the final solution to Middle East peace and security is democracy at home and diplomacy abroad.

According to the Iranian President’s definition, the “purpose” of security and the “subject” of security will be Inclusive and widespread.

It means that the goal and the source of security are not just the political systems, but the people as well.

On the other hand, the issue of security is not limited to the “military” domain, but also covers economic, social, and other areas. That is to say, Iran’s plan emphasizes human security alongside state security.

The Iran plan defines “security for all or no one” and links security to economy energy sectors.

According to the Iran plan, “security and peace in the Persian Gulf, the Oman Sea and the Strait of Hormuz can be provided with the participation of all countries in the region.

The Iranian plan states that when the umbrella security is universal for everyone and in all areas, the security of the free flow of oil and other energy resources can be guaranteed.

In general, the “Hormuz Peace Endeavour” demonstrates the realism in Iranian foreign policy and departs from idealism in past security plans.

In fact, in the current plan, Iran, along with the countries of the region, insists on creating a new coalition with the presence of trans-regional countries. This new coalition, contrary to previous Iranian plans, is a structure based on the balance of regional power.

Iran’s intended security structure in the region is seeking to create a bipolar situation with minimal deterrence and the United States and its Arab allies are on one side and Iran and Hope coalition are on the other side.