Only China, India, and Russia Can End the Iran War

Foreign Policy | Amir Handjani

The fact that Washington is depending on China, India, and Russia to bring about an end to the war in Iran shows a significant change in Middle Eastern diplomacy, since the United States can no longer achieve a peaceful settlement by itself. Western sanctions and military deterrence have not been able to secure the special diplomatic and economic influence that these three major powers have over Tehran.

The fact that the United States is now dependent on diplomatic means arises from the fact that it has reached the limit of its ability to act alone and has therefore had to depend on the major powers in order to achieve stability in the region. Beijing, New Delhi and Moscow have established important energy partnerships and diplomatic links with the Iranian government which Washington does not have. Cooperation among the great powers is still the only feasible option. In the end, the course that the conflict will take will depend on whether these opposing countries decide to use their combined influence to reduce tensions in the region or else take advantage of the current instability to systematically diminish American influence in the Middle East.

Comment

The fact that the diplomatic efforts depend on non-Western intermediaries in order to settle the dispute in Iran shows the fundamental weaknesses of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation when it comes to handling crises between its own members. Although Beijing and Moscow have in the past used the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as a means of presenting a united front against Western influence, the organisation has no formal collective security arrangement by which to ensure peace. As a result, the bilateral diplomatic relations of individual members such as India and China take priority over the multilateral structure of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation when there are active hostilities.

The lack of a proper institutional framework is especially clear in the case of the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure, since this body concentrates solely on the sharing of intelligence and not on mediating conflicts. Because the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has no central command and no peacekeeping authority, it is unable to use neutral third parties to ease border or regional disputes between its member states. Conflict settlement thus continues to rely on spontaneous bilateral arrangements, for example on Beijing's earlier role as mediator in the diplomatic rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Would the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation's cohesion be weakened if it continues to have no formal peacekeeping mandate, or does its expansion to involve states from the Middle East merely formalise a network of bilateral diplomatic relationships?

The fact that the organisation is enlarged without at the same time introducing a collective security system means that its institutional effectiveness is reduced and it becomes merely a symbolic forum rather than a real security alliance. I believe that this kind of expansion supports a trend in which the member states make use of the organisation mainly for diplomatic showmanship while actually handling conflicts through unilateral and transactional arrangements. As a result, the organisation is going to stay a loose diplomatic group rather than developing into a unified security structure capable of dealing with regional crises.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here