Conflict Prevention

The two groups from Iran and Saudi Arabia were composed of former diplomats, senior analysts, security and environmental experts. In addition, a group of distinguished experts from think tanks, academia, and the UN contributed with their input and analysis.

Held under strict Chatham House Rule, the dialogue aimed at gaining insights on how Saudi Arabia and Iran view the environmental challenges they face in their respective countries and the region, how future cooperation in the fields of environment could look like, and what impediments to cooperation need to be overcome. 

The participants discussed the most pressing environmental issues facing West Asia, the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula, including the economic and political consequences of long term drought, water scarcity, air pollution, and sand and dust storms, and how to tackle those issues on a national, bilateral, and regional level. The participants also discussed the possible consequences of non-cooperation on those matters in the future, and what implications that might have on migration, radicalism, employment, and habitation in those two countries and the region. Beyond the conversation on the environmental challenges, the current geopolitical impediments to cooperation were also highlighted. 

A comprehensive policy brief of EWI and CARPO will follow in June.

Executive summary of the brief:

Falling oil and gas prices and shrinking demand across global energy markets pose enormous challenges for energy exporting countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia and lead to decreasing revenues from this sector. Despite differences in the structures of their respective national economies, both countries share common challenges in adapting to this new situation. High youth unemployment rates, an underrepresentation of women in the workforce, a public sector unable to absorb the high numbers of university graduates as well as environmental degradation and pollution, all constitute major problems for both countries and their economies. But, while solving many of these issues would ideally demand bilateral cooperation, a political climate of mutual mistrust and enmity currently inhibits such a process.

CARPO and the EastWest Institute initiated a meeting of experts from Saudi Arabia and Iran as part of their ‘Iran-Saudi Track 2 Initiative.’ The stated aim was to shed light on the challenges and opportunities a ‘post-oil’ era might bring as well as to explore potential areas for cooperation between both countries. While participants agreed on the necessity of cooperation for creating strong and less oil-dependent economies, from which both countries as well as the whole region would benefit, their assessments varied on where this could begin.

The report can be downloaded here.

Related:

Know Your Enemy — Iranian and Saudi Perspectives on ISIL

Iranian and Saudi Perspectives on the Refugee Crisis

Dr. William J. Parker says that the U.S. recent interaction with China has been “very positive” in curbing threats from North Korea as the reclusive nation attempted, and failed, to launch an unidentified missile in their latest weapons test.

"We are heading in the direction to say all options are on the table, and standby if you do not respond the way we expect you to," said the institute’s Chief Operating Officer in an interview with John Catsimatidis that aired on Sunday.

“Kicking the can down the road for the next generation or the next leader to deal with is rarely a good idea. Whether we are talking about the U.S. national debt, Russia's expanding influence in the Crimea, Assad's increased tyranny-to include use of chemical weapons, or North Korea's multi-decade efforts to develop long range nuclear weapon strike capability. These are issues that are usually better dealt with earlier than later. Making the hard decisions is what the president is elected to do. And while it may not always be popular, President Trump is stepping up and making those hard decisions.”

Parker added, “you could hear that just last Wednesday the Chinese went to the North Koreans formally and said, you need to take possible military action from the United States seriously.”

Beijing, Pyongyang’s biggest ally, has been pushed to exert a more serious pressure on its neighbor.

While recognizing North Korea as “a capable force,” the former chief of staff for U.S. Naval Forces believed the regime did not have the critical capability yet to inflict a large scale damage.

"(The U.S. and North Korea) have nuclear weapons, but the U.S. has thousands and the ability to miniaturize while North Korea has 10 to 20 and no ability to miniaturize right now. Nor does North Korea have strategic launch missile ballistic capability and they do not currently have intercontinental missile capability, but they’re getting there.”

Parker’s comments were picked up by various outlets, including The Hill click (here) and Vivere Milano (here).

Click here to listen. Miller's comments start around the 5:50 mark.

The EastWest Institute's COO appeared on the show on April 10 to discuss a wide range of current issues, particularly the U.S. military response to reports of chemical weapon use in Syria as well as possible confrontation with North Korea.

Parker believed that President Donald Trump's military action "puts the world on notice to stop misbehaving." 

Asked about North Korea's likely capabilities, Parker said state or non-state actors with nuclear capability could potentially reach the United States with simple delivery systems like trucks, ships and containers.

"Specifically, if you can deliver a nuclear weapon on a ship or in a truck it can have the same devastating result as if it is delivered by a missile. But that means that the weapon must be small enough to deliver and get through a lot of layers of intelligence and defense systems. As far as missile delivery, there are two likely scenarios that North Korea is working towards. The first is a submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) and the second is an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The North Koreans are certainly working hard to obtain this capability, but in my opinion, are not quite there yet with their delivery vehicles or the miniaturization of their weapons. But I have no doubt that they are on track to achieve this capability very soon."

The retired senior U.S. naval officer also said replicating the Iran Nuclear Deal with Pyongyang would not be enough.

"In my opinion, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed by P5+1, does a good job of addressing the issues of enrichment reprocessing and monitoring but does not go far enough in eliminating the possibility of Iran creating nuclear weapons in the near future. In the case of North Korea and based on their lack of real interaction with the rest of the international community, the only acceptable option would be a complete elimination of nuclear test facilities and the removal of all fissile materials. Additionally, the immediate cessation of all medium range and long range missiles (beyond those necessary for point defense) should be a requirement," said Parker.

Some may wonder why Russia would risk the ridicule it received in the European and U.S. press by sending aging warships into the Mediterranean late last year. On December 5, 2016, Bloomberg even called the voyage of the Admiral Kuznetsov, the country’s only carrier, a “blunder.” But was it really? Among the factors for consideration, the Syrian conflict has provided an opportunity for Russia to deploy defensive systems to the Mediterranean, especially Tartus. Under the guise of aid to an ally at war and fighting ISIL, aircraft, cruise missiles and advisors could be moved in an operation that might otherwise have been countered as military expansionism by the Western powers. That window of opportunity had to be seized and the Northern Fleet carrier group was the only available means. A broader view of the mission raises interesting points about the actual status and future of the Russian surface fleets.

The traditional responsibility of the Russian Navy has been to provide a marine-based defense. It is not to serve as a Mahan style world ranging commerce protector. It has been, and continues to be, an extension of the land-based defense force. If we view Russia’s recent Mediterranean mission in light of Mahan’s blue water strategy, it can be deemed as a failure. It did not operate in open oceans, but more of as a coastal fleet. The flotilla had difficulties mechanically, it was refused refueling; and it lost aircraft. It did make it to the Syrian coast, but had minimal effect on the war, including having seen its air wing fly from land bases, and then the Kuznetsov was quickly recalled. Furthermore, photos of the Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke like an old Dreadnaught did not portray the vision of a modern Navy at the peak of operational proficiency.

The Bloomberg assessment would be correct if the Kremlin were signaling a new Russian imperialism. However, that would indicate a quantum change in the mission of the naval arm of Russia’s military. Case in point, France’s termination of the Mistral projects was seen by Russian sources as the end of an idea out of place in the overall scheme of naval defense. The extension of military force through amphibious operations was seen as useful only for adventures in faraway regions. A shift to an overseas offensive fleet could also be seen as a miscalculation of the navy’s surface fleet’s current capabilities.

Russian Naval plans for the future still show a force dedicated to the defense of the Russian homeland. The problem is that this is a future fleet. The ships that will someday comprise the modern Russian Navy are still on the drawing boards. In the case of new carriers, new ship building facilities are, as of yet, not available to build vessels capable of long term, open ocean operations with a capable air wing. Even with the acquisition of port facilities in the Crimea, the Russians lack the docks, tools or expertise in modern building techniques and propulsion systems needed to build an American style blue water navy.

Russia is maintaining a legacy fleet which is quickly approaching the end of its operational life. The Admiral Kuznetsov itself has been slated for overhaul for some time. That said, the fleet can still be useful within the strictures of Russian Naval doctrine as Moscow seeks to position defensive weapon systems in forward positions to counter NATO, and particularly United States, naval assets.

As such, the sailing fulfills the primary mission of the Russian Navy as a line of defense. The Navy is designed to provide defense in depth by being the first line, at sea. Their current and future weapons have tremendous capabilities in their many variants, but limited range. The effective range of aircraft such as the carrier based SU-33 is 2993 km (1,860 miles) and the new SU-34 only 1094 km; primary missile systems such as the Moskit and Sizzler 240 km and Kalibr 1,500 km. All need to be forward deployed to be truly effective.

The inclusion of the Eastern Mediterranean in this strategy is nothing new. In Russian eyes, the Navy truly began with the riverine fleets of 9th century Kiev that protected trade routes through Constantinople. Russia became a sea power under Peter the Great (1672-1725). Aside from the Great Northern Wars with Sweden, the history focuses on the use of naval power in the 19th century to secure access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea. There has always been a quest to secure bases in the Aegean or the Levant from which Russia’s only year round access to the maritime world can be protected. Reinforcing and expanding the base in Tartus, Syria fulfills that ambition.

In this respect, despite its shortcomings and age, the flotilla was successful. It did operate in the Mediterranean, demonstrating both at home and abroad that Russian weapon systems can be given the needed extension of range if the proper surface assets are available. The securing of naval and air force bases in Syria, together with the posting of bombers to Iran, extended Russia’s defensive ring to the Indian Ocean and Northern Africa.

The mission also provided training in the complexities of operating an air wing at sea and morale boost within the service itself. This “hands on” training is what gives the U.S. Navy an edge over most other Navies in the world.

As a public relations gambit targeting the Russian people and those holding the purse strings, the mission was a qualified success. It showed the capabilities of the Navy, in spite of its aging ships, and demonstrated the possibilities for a modernized fleet. The mission also helped erase the memories of the disasters of the subsurface fleet and the deterioration of the Black Seas Fleet following the independence of the Ukraine. Now, as the smoke from the Admiral Kuznetsov clears, it remains to be seen when funding for new surface ships becomes available.

Robert Cobb is a historian of American ideology, with an interest in the development of military strategy and planning. He has taught courses in American History, the History of Warfare, American Naval History, at a New England private school and as adjunct faculty of Syracuse University.

The views expressed in this post reflect those of the author and not that of the EastWest Institute.

Photo: "RFS Admiral Kuznetsov, Russian navy flag" (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by some guy called Darren

With no unified Syrian curriculum for Syrian children in or outside of the country in sight, Tara Kangarlou's interview with Imad Barq sheds light on potential alternatives that can be taken into consideration when attempting to manage the education crisis in Syria.

Barq, who believes “the only way to monitor the volatile education landscape” is to be in Syria, currently resides in Western Aleppo where he seeks to help the thousands of Syrian children who have been deprived of an education.

Click here to read the full interview on Al-Monitor.

The EastWest Institute is proud to release its 2016 Annual Report, highlighting last year’s programmatic activities, achievements and new initiatives.

The impact of the institute across the globe is a testament to the talented and diverse staff working across five offices, our distinguished Board of Directors and a profound global network of decision makers and experts that help facilitate our mission.