Iranian Ships Near American Waters

In a development carrying more than one potential meaning, Admiral Habibollah Sayari, commander of the Iranian navy, announced on Sept. 27 Tehran’s intention to deploy naval ships in the Atlantic Ocean near American territorial waters. He justified this action by saying that if Washington has the right to engage in activity near Iran’s maritime boundaries then Tehran has the right to maintain a strong presence near American maritime boundaries.

This announcement came after Tehran rejected an American request that a “hotline” be established to help avoid any undesirable confrontations between the two countries’ armies in the Gulf region.

Although the United States has played down the importance of this announcement, alleging that Tehran does not have the military capabilities to take this step, some believe that Iran would technically be able to reach close to the American coastline with its ships.

Regardless of Tehran’s ability and desire to actually follow through with this, one can view the announcement from multiple angles. In addition to the principal angle of Iran’s bid to secure a prominent position in the Gulf region, and the Middle East more broadly, this is a warning to the Americans to negotiate with Iran and take their interests into account in regional issues ranging from the situation in Iraq to the crisis in Syria to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the future of security in the Gulf region.

Iran is attempting to exploit the present circumstances facing the Americans, who are bogged down in several crises and are searching for a lifeline. The Iranians are aware that they can provide this lifeline to Washington with respect to various issues, chief among them Iraq, so they are grasping this opportunity to impose their vision and agenda upon the region.

The second angle to this announcement is that it could serve as a proclamation of the beginning of a new stage in Iranian foreign policy. Iran is taking courage in its capabilities and nuclear program, especially as these threats can only become reality with the nuclear program. This suggests that the program is not intended for peaceful purposes as Tehran claims, and it seems the Iranians would not hesitate to exploit it militarily, in order to impose their vision of Gulf security based on the absence of foreign military presence in the region.

Thirdly, the announcement may be intended to preoccupy Washington with issues less important than the Iranian nuclear program until the development of the program is complete. This is also Israel’s strategy in its negotiations with the Arab states: It always tries to distract the Arabs with secondary issues which take so long to resolve that it ends up making the Arabs forget to negotiate over the primary issues.

The announcement may be seen from a fourth angle as a response to Turkey’s decision to allow the establishment of a NATO early-warning radar system on its soil, in order to monitor any nuclear threats from outside Europe — including any potential threat from Iran. The decision sparked Iranian protest and resentment and led to a cooling of relations between the two countries, especially in light of their conflicting points of view regarding the crisis in Syria.

To view it from a fifth angle, perhaps it comes in the framework of Tehran’s efforts to improve its image in the region, after a marked decline in Iranian popularity among neighboring states and peoples due to certain policy positions, interference in the affairs of these states and violation of established diplomatic customs and traditions governing international relations.

Lastly, it is not unlikely that Tehran’s declaration arrives in the context of an unwritten agreement between the two countries to ramp up the pace of statements designed to convince the nations and the region of the existence of conflict between Iran and America, in order to cover up any present or future deals between them.

In any case, and no matter the motivations and meanings, the countries of the region should be careful not to waste too much time studying this back-and-forth between America and Iran, because our ultimate goal remains searching for mutual interests. The consequences for the region are negative whether the relationship between Tehran and Washington is cooperative or combative, because cooperation means deals and bargains to expand Tehran’s power and fortify its control over neighboring countries, while conflict could lead to disastrous consequences for everyone.