Kritika 
(C): Unsplash
Reactions to Iran’s regional activities have been the subject of a recent debate in the international community in the wake of attacks against the Gulf states. Critics state Tehran’s success in using coercion and strategic pressure, and fear for the future of security in the Middle East and the efficacy of international deterrence.
Attacks on Gulf States Raise Questions About Diplomacy
The latest missile strikes aimed at Bahrain and the damage to Kuwait facilities have added to concerns among regional governments and Western allies. The incidents coincided with current diplomacy to defuse tensions, with some analysts saying the talks are the only way to change Iran’s strategic thinking.
In the Gulf countries, attacks on civilian infrastructure and transportation facilities are seen not just as a security threat, but as a threat to regional stability and economic confidence. Those actions cast doubt on diplomatic means and indicate an intention to escalate as a political weapon, critics argue.
These have raised the issue of whether there is a need for greater enforcement of the use of diplomacy in order to be effective in an unstable security environment.
Role of the IRGC is Expanding
The attention is on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is not just a military organization anymore. It is often said that the organisation is a force to be reckoned with in terms of economic and political power, and it has a presence in various areas of the Iranian economy.
The IRGC is thought to be involved in the energy, construction, shipping, telecommunications and financial networks sectors. It has even faced accusations by Western governments of having facilities to help Iran evade sanctions, which are aimed at cutting off funding for the Iranian economy.
Critics say this is a centralisation of political, military and economic power that leads to the incentive to keep the regional tensions alive. This perspective makes the maintenance of influence and the defence of the interests of the elites interwoven with other policy goals for the nation.
Regional Pressure as a Strategic Instrument
Iran has long been accused of being supported by a network of allied groups and proxy organisations in the Middle East that are helping it to spread its influence. One of the “indirect confrontation” strategies has been support for groups like Hezbollah and other non-state groups, which is cited by regional rivals and Western governments.
Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz is another volatile area. The waterway is used for a substantial amount of global energy transport and thus is a concern on an international level when interrupted.
Security experts say that attacks on shipping lanes, energy supplies and neighbouring countries make the times uncertain and can be capitalised on during times of heightened tension. These are the practices they believe will help leverage a negotiation without resorting to any major open conflict, they say.
Nuclear Concerns Remain at the Center
Although the incidents in the region have grown in significance, many policymakers remain focused on Iran’s nuclear program as the number one strategic issue.
Some analysts suggest Tehran is well-positioned when international focus moves from the Iranian nuclear standoff to issues related to the sea, the proxy war or regional crises. Using more than one point of tension at the same time, Iran could make it more difficult for the United States and its allies to coordinate a response.
Gulf governments are worried that a series of crises might divert them from the longer-term nuclear monitoring and enforcement initiatives.
Why Deterrence Is Becoming a Central Policy Debate
The number of security analysts is increasing who believe that diplomacy and deterrence should not be separate, but rather go hand in hand. They believe that negotiations are not the best means of resolving the issue if they are not accompanied by consequences if countries fail to respect international norms.
This method involves more robust security cooperation between the Gulf states, Israel and the United States, better security of maritime trade routes and better responses to attacks against civilian infrastructure.
Those who favour this approach believe that the world’s laws are of little value in terms of stability unless there is a reliable enforcement process in place. They believe the security, energy and freedom of navigation issues in the region are becoming increasingly interrelated and need to be addressed collectively.
Meanwhile, many experts stress that they need to differentiate between the Iranian government and the Iranian people. They say that criticism of state policies does not have to be mixed in with attitudes towards Iran’s population, which is still dealing with its own economic and political issues.
The Bottom Line
But the discussion about Iran’s regional behaviour is coming down to a single question: Is there a way to achieve diplomacy without credible deterrence? With the situation remaining unsettled in the Gulf, many policymakers are convinced that ongoing peace and stability will come from a combination of dialogue and enforcement – backing up international law by force of arms as well as words.
More Global Security Stories You Shouldn’t Miss
Why Is Europe Watching Iran Closely?
Check out how security concerns are reshaping diplomatic oversight.
Can Diplomatic Missions Face New Limits?
Find out why Europe is increasing scrutiny of Iranian missions.
How Significant Is The UNHRC Move?
Uncover the global response to attacks and accountability efforts.
Will Britain Stay Out Completely?
Look into the UK’s stance on conflict and economic support plans.
Why Is Sudan Drawing Attention?
Dive into concerns over Iran’s growing influence near the Red Sea.
