US - GCC Security Relations, I: Differing Threat Perceptions

Abstract

Support for Washington's tough containment policy toward Iraq and Iran remains strong at top leadership levels in the Gulf. However, among educated elites and the man in the street, it is softer. The distance in views between the government and the populace on security concerns may be widening. In Saudi Arabia, there is a widespread view that Saudi Arabia (as distinct from Kuwait) was not threatened by Iraq in October 1994. In this view, Saddam's mobilization on the border was designed to call attention to Iraq's sanctions plight, and the United States over-reacted. Among the educated elite in the GCC states, sympathy for the Iraqi people is strong. So too are fears that continued sanctions, while failing to remove Saddam, could turn the Iraqi populace against the Gulf states that support sanctions. Conspiracy theories accuse the United States of keeping Saddam in power, or at least doing little to remove him, while using the Iraqi threat to strip the Arab Gulf states of their wealth through purchases of unnecessary military hardware. The idea that the United States has used the Iraqi threat to acquire a monopoly of military sales to the Gulf is widespread. More disturbing is growing anti-American sentiment, especially in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, where the the oil industry and the U.S. military are concentrated. Educated Arabs are beginning to blame the United States, with its strong military presence in the Gulf, for bolstering governments open to charges of corruption and maldistribution of wealth and perceived as suppressing even modest dissent. In Kuwait, the threat posed by Saddam was taken seriously. At the level of popular opinion, the idea that all Iraqis have designs on Kuwait is frequently repeated. Among elites, however, there are more diverse views of Iraq. Some are trying to make contact with exiled Iraqis in the Middle East with a view to preparing for future normalization. A tiny minority even favor a lifting of sanctions, on the grounds that sanctions are strengthening Saddam and prolonging his rule while turning the population against the Gulf states that support it. Most GCC states see Iran, not Iraq, as the long term threat (a position closer to that of the United States), and do not want Iraq weakened as a balance against Iran (a position more at variance with the United States). This position is particularly strong at the foot of the Gulf, where the UAE and Oman worry about the long term intentions of Iran. Tehran has been asserting itself more vigorously in Gulf waters. In the last few years, Iran has acquired a range of sea lane denial capabilities. There have been some episodes over U.S. inspections, pursuant to the Iraq embargo, of ships stopping in Iranian ports. Most importantly, Iran upset the 20 year old agreement with the UAE about shared rights on the disputed islands of Abu Musa and the two Tunbs. In late 1994 and early 1995, Iran moved a heavy military presence onto Abu Musa, including artillery and several thousand troops. GCC states often compare Iranian actions on Abu Musa and the two Tunbs to Saddam's attack on Kuwait. Many GCC citizens want U.S. support for their position that the islands belong to the UAE. At the same time, however, GCC states are wary of the U.S. Dual Containment policy toward Iran because they are concerned it may antagonize Iranian leaders. Heightened U.S. rhetoric and active U.S. measures, like trade sanctions and boycotts, stir alarm over potential military confrontation. The emirate of Dubai in the UAE, which exercises a large measure of independence from the federal UAE government that is largely dominated by the emirate of Abu Dhabi, would prefer a more subtle approach to Iran, with which Dubai has substantial trade, financial and personal ties. These ambiguities indicate unclear and conflicting threat perceptions, as well as the traditional bias of Gulf rulers for balance of power politics that retain a potential for accommodationist policies. …