Gessler, on October 22, 2021, commented on a very interesting idea of a new Quad:
A new 'Quad' seems to be taking shape in the Middle East, with Israel & UAE joining the common core of US & India (from the Indo-Pacific Quad).
The Foreign Ministers/Secretaries of State equivalents of Israel, UAE, US and India held a part-virtual, part-in person summit a few days ago, a year after the historic 'Abraham Accords'.
I [Gessler] can only speculate as to the US perspective in this, the others will work with it if they see common cause:
1) Keep strategic Chinese investments & facilities out of Israel & UAE/GCC (like the terminal at Israel’s Port of Haifa owned by China's CCP - that's causing heartburn in Washington)
2) Keep China from supplanting the US' role as the main external backer (strategically & financially) of Israel
3) Keep India from dependence on Iranian crude oil by substituting it permanently with GCC (Arab oil) supplies, probably making the current costly endeavor a bit dearer.
Beyond that Israel, UAE, US and India could be seeking to create a common platform for controlling several emerging tech regulatory functions, keeping out Chinese 5G (and in future probably Chinese Artificial Intelligence) etc like the Indo-Pacific Quad is doing now.
A good analysis of the development & some perspective from Indian website The Print https://theprint.in/opinion/global-print/why-us-and-india-are-taking-on-china-with-a-middle-eastern-quad/752775/
This also needs to be looked at through the lens of the proposed Arab-Mediterranean Trade Corridor proposed by India some years ago, but until the Abraham Accords were signed, it didn't seem practical - but now it seems to be the most pragmatic thing around.
--------------------
The Youtube (here and above) beautifully summarizes the Quad/Corridor concept in detail - especially from 8:35 onward.
-----------------
Important supporting documents:
1. Professor Michael Tanchum’s August 27, 2021, abstract “India’s Arab-Mediterranean Corridor: A Paradigm Shift in Strategic Connectivity to Europe” at https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/indias-arab-mediterranean-corridor-a-paradigm-shift-in-strategic-connectivity-to-europe/
2. Tanchum’s actual report: https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/South-Asia-Scan-Aug-2021-V4.pdf
and
3. Some comment’s at Tanchum’s twitter account
https://twitter.com/michaeltanchum/status/1432982061632172033
10 comments:
Hi Pete, thanks for the thread.
I was having a conversation regarding this with someone elsewhere on the internet and they asked how would this effect the India-Iran relationship, to which I replied:
"Negatively. But it was inevitable though.
Iran is firmly in the Chinese fold. They don't have the option of relying on the US/West, so it's not like they had a realistic choice in deciding to join up with China.
That said, Iran had been constantly creating roadblocks for any meaningful Indian investment in the country for the longest time (Chabahar port, Farzad-B gas field etc.), pretty obviously the work of a faction within the Iranian establishment that wants to lean toward China. And that faction clearly won.
Directly or indirectly, the Abraham Accords were the best thing to have happened to Indian foreign policy & trade in the Middle East."
Hi Gessler
No problem. It was all interesting.
Besides being good for India and Israel if this Quad/Corridor reduces the economic growth of China's Belt and Road then Quad/Corridor will be beneficial for democracies.
Pete
In this context people need to watch this too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG6P2NymBlg
Do we ever deploy our forces for Iran? Never. The highest number of Indian expatriate lives in UAE.
UAE deploys Huawei and ZTE networks for more than >10++ years, including 5G.
KQN
India lost on the gas fields as china assiduously wooed enough folks on the council of guardians or the ayatollahs and also the political top brass...
Farzad B was the canary in the coal mine (given Iran's increasingly usurious demands tailored to boot India out) and now chabahar is close to gone too..
for me the Abraham accords frankly formalise the already extensive informal links that Bahrain, UAE and Oman had with Israel (not to mention the wide underground connections the Saudis have). Along with Morocco, Egypt, Sudan (pre-coup)...that merely gives a formal/semi-formal stamp to what was mostly geo-political reality since years now....
On 2 counts I think these accords might turn out to be a kinda damp squib (Gessler, please do point out where my assumptions could be wrong)
1. Economic aspect: Barring oil/gas and may be ammonia/hydrogen in the future, the economic contribution by these arab states could be frankly limited..history also bears witness to this and is not very encouraging either...
2. military aspect: For the most part I am inclined to think even including the reasonably capable egyptian forces, middle eastern armed forces are of 'limited use' in a real conflict (to be charitable)...how the dice will fall will depend greatly on if the US is willing to 'walk the talk'...if I was a betting man, I would wager the US will not 'walk'
the abraham accord will certainly help Israel sell stuff and may be the larger arab states economically in a more limited way, the larger geo-political aspects are going to be a let down i feel. we are dealing with a region that has not credibly won a war against any enemy since 1683 (and even before..the last proper victories came during Suleiman the great)
China has built extensive freight train corridors till London literally in one unbroken line from Yiwu on the eastern coast to Urumqi in Xinjiang through Kazakhstan to Turkey to Prague till London. If China can stay on as the biggest gas, gypsum, ammonia and hydrogen importer from the middle east then the 'mid-east' quad dynamics are unlikely to materialise.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/China-s-shrewd-bet-on-intercontinental-rail
Iran has also been linked to the 'rail silk road' already through Mashad-Tehran-Ankara leg. Iran views India as being in the 'US camp' and won't help barring cash sales on oil and gas I assume.
best not to keep high hopes on this 'mid east quad'....
PS: Given most chinese investments have not gone well such as CPEC or the infra deals in the horn of africa....it needs to be seen how the next chinese gambit unfolds...
Hi Ghalib
Thanks for your extensive comments.
I have to admit vast regional economics, at this level of detail, are not my strongest suit.
But on the Military side:
1683? your reference to 1683 marks the Battle of Vienna. This was the first time the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Holy Roman Empire cooperated militarily against the Ottomans, and it is often seen as a turning point in history, after which the "Ottoman Turks ceased to be a menace to the Christian world". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
Often the best laid plans for Mid-East Peace are dashed - but occasionally plans work. For example:
1978 - The Camp David Accords did much to reduce conflict between Arab States and Israel. The US paying vast sums of tied military aid to Egypt and Israel has done wonders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords#Consequences
1990-1991 the US organising a vast Western Alliance force to protect Saudi Arabia and free Kuwait against Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War led to lasting positive results, but also steamed up Osama bin Ladin in a negative result
2020 - Here's hoping the Abraham Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords have a similar lasting impact. As you say these accords publically formalise what has already been happening in a low key way. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Oman, often through Jordanian intelligence, have long been talking to the Israelis. The Abraham Accords appear to be the one foreign policy achievement of Trump's term in office.
The "BOMB" Prevents Successful Invasion
But the Iranians have not been part of these Peace deals. Instead Iran would have noticed that its neighbour Pakistan's and Israel's ownership of the "Bomb" have made them immune to being successfully invaded.
@GhalibKabir
There is merit to your arguments, though I will make the following observations:
1) The Economic impact of the 'Mid-East Quad' would be felt in the way as put by Jyoti Malhotra in The Print article. Broadly speaking: Israeli tech and R&D (in several critical fields from energy, agriculture to AI), GCC capital investment, Indian market scale plus US investment & strategic heft.
The parties will have to play to each's own strengths. What you said about GCC's contribution being minimal beyond Energy is true, but then again that's what is spurring their willingness to invest considerable amounts into a world not as dependent on fossil fuels as it is today. There's also the fact that they are relatively small populations and don't need to consume much for themselves, so they'll remain an energy exporter (in one form or the other) for the foreseeable future, never really a consumption-driven market economy. Same is more or less true for Israel as well (though their exports are different).
That's where India comes in.
2) Well I don't think there IS any military aspect to it, at least not yet. Even if there would be, the US, Israel & perhaps in future India would be the 'fighting arms', not the GCC with their, dare I say, half-baked conscripts imported from Africa, Bangladesh & elsewhere with no loyalty or will to fight & die for their country because, well, it's not their country.
That said, they might not really need to. The GCC (and Israel) face existential military threats from only two possible parties: Iran & Turkey. With US support, neither is really a problem...as of whether US will continue to provide support, well...
On the one hand, you can make the argument that with deals like AUKUS, the complete reorganization of the Marine Corps (read; Force Design 2030), QUAD etc, the US is now fully back in the game of 'Containment'. On the other hand, you can make the argument that US is now fully shifting its strategic focus to the Pacific where the real threat to US hegemony lies. And rightfully so.
However, I'm of the opinion that sooner or later, the 'Containment' strategy WILL move Westward. The First & Second Island Chains & the critical chokepoints at the straits connecting the Pacific to the Indian Ocean, and China's inability to control them are the reason for BRI/Silk Road's existence.
As the noose begins to tighten around the maritime networks that govern the vast majority of China's trade (and by that I mean the reinforcing of American/Allied control of the routes), the CCP will find itself with two options: starting a War in the Pacific OR a major push for overland trade unlike any we've seen before. And that will include new or renewed Alliances between China and several regional powers (Iran, maybe Turkey, and of course Pakistan).
If it's gonna be a war in the Pacific, it's gonna be a war. But if China instead decides to look West, so will the 'Allies'. For example, the original Cold War's premise was simple: Don't let the Soviets invade Europe. But it didn't take long before the strategy evolved into the 'containment of Communism' (another way of saying containment of Soviet political & military influence) everywhere from the Middle East & Afghanistan to Korea & Vietnam.
And in a globalized world of interconnected economies & trade, I'd venture to say this region-specific focus isn't going to last. Do keep in mind that the widening of the focus area need not necessarily include military means. That said, the US probably has no plans of giving up its substantial presence in the GCC as a bulwark against Iran.
Continued...
...Continued
+++
On that note, I'm also interested in imagining what kind of role India would probably play in the Middle East by the 2030-2040 time period - as the world's No.3 economy with an annual defence spending probably above $150 billion, plus with a substantial Naval power (both surface & sub-surface), India COULD be in a position to project serious power in the region in support of critical trade & strategic partners like UAE & Israel. Possibly in collaboration with the US & UK, both of which have similar interests to that end.
Due to the large Indian expatriate population in the UAE (about a third of the total population, 40% of which are white-collar professionals), it's certainly closer to home and in having an active interest in the region's stability. The video shared by Arpit Kanodia above is good perspective on the matter.
++++
On to the matter of China's BRI/Silk Road...I have to wonder the viability of these projects long term. Going through mountainous terrains of politically & socially unstable/volatile countries, I'd like to see which way the pendulum swings...between increasing economic unviability on one side (compared to trade over sea routes + over land of relatively stable countries with flat geographies like GCC) & debt-trap economics on the other.
A nice topographical map that illustrates the geography point:
https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/medium/print/8/8/break/images/artworkimages/medium/3/middle-east-3d-render-topographic-map-color-frank-ramspott.jpg
pakistan has the luck (or ill-luck?) of being a useful lackey to china and has the arab world's blessings as the custodian of the 'sunni bomb' while israel has had the benefit of the west and soviets looking away for the most part....Iran is unlucky on both counts, it is the head of the 'heretical' shia bloc and not in the good books of the west either...both handicaps enough to cripple its ambitions time and again.
Iran's tenacity has been admirable and even today with a SSW/midget submarine centric 19-sub navy, it can potentially be a real pain in the nether regions if needed.
Hi Ghalib [at Oct 28, 2021, 5:11:00 PM]
Its well known that pre-1979 the US was building the Shah's Iran up as an Israel-like "Deputy Sheriff" of the region.
It is also well known the US sold the Shah US$Billions in high tech CONVENTIONAL weapons, like the top of the line F-14 fighter.
Less well known was that some in the Nixon Administration wanted the Shah's Iran to better perform its Deputy Sheriff duties by providing the beginnings of an Iranian Nuclear Weapon capability.
1. The "Atoms for Peace" Public Face was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Nuclear_support
"The U.S. helped Iran create its nuclear program starting in 1957 by providing Iran its first nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel"
2. BUT, again turning to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Nuclear_support the covert NUCLEAR WEAPONS PRECURSOR option was:
"and after 1967 [the US helped Iran] by providing Iran with WEAPONS GRADE ENRICHED URANIUM.[52][53][54]"
Very odd, that in a region that was frequently a war zone the US was giving Iran WEAPONS GRADE ENRICHED URANIUM.
And, a very significant Note: This was in the context of US, UK, German and French plans to provide the Shah's Iran with a highly developed nuclear sector. https://archive.ph/20121206034719/http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2006/05/blasts_from_the.html
Such a sector, with HEU in hand, would have had a "Nuclear Breakout" capability.
Post a Comment