POWER SECURITY AND THE NEXT WORLD ORDER - PT 1 of 2
Security through mutual cooperation rather than permanent confrontation
Iran is often criticised in the West for taking a hard-line position over the Strait of Hormuz. However, from the Iranian perspective, maintaining leverage over the strait is fundamentally about security.
The argument is that if Iran remains vulnerable to sanctions, military pressure, economic coercion, and the presence of hostile military bases surrounding it, then it requires some strategic counterweight of its own.
The Strait of Hormuz provides that leverage.
As necessary, Iran can potentially impose costs on states that sanction it or host military infrastructure directed against it. In this sense, control over Hormuz is viewed by Tehran not as an end in itself, but as a way of preventing a return to a period where Iran could be threatened without possessing meaningful leverage to counter.
From the Iranian viewpoint, giving up unilateral influence over the strait without wider security guarantees would simply restore the old imbalance of power.
Strait of Hormuz - Narrow maritime passage between Iran and Oman through which a large proportion of global oil exports pass.
Strategic leverage - The ability to influence other states through control of an important asset or position.
---
2. Iran’s Preferred Alternative: Collective Security
Iranian policymakers, alongside proposals advanced by China and Russia, seem to be arguing for an inclusive regional security architecture in the Gulf.
How would this work?:
• Regional states would collectively manage security.
• External military domination would be reduced.
• Security guarantees would apply to all states rather than to rival blocs. (Alliances are anathema to shared security arrangements.)
• Economic cooperation would little by little replace confrontation.
In this scenario, Iran might become less insistent on independently controlling Hormuz because its security would no longer rely solely on unilateral deterrence.
The argument is therefore not necessarily that Iran seeks permanent domination over the strait, but rather that it does not trust the current regional order to protect its interests fairly.
Thiugh it avoids the other reason given for Iranian control of Hormuz, that a tollbooth is a way to extract compensation for the distruction of its country.
Security architecture - The overall framework through which states attempt to maintain stability, manage conflicts, reduce mutual threats, and organise regional or international security relationships, whether through cooperation, neutrality, diplomacy, treaties, alliances, or shared institutions.
Deterrence - The use of strategic pressure or retaliatory capability to discourage hostile action.
---
3. The Gulf System and the Logic of Dependency
Critics of the current Gulf order argue that the existing system operates through a balance of fear and dependency. As long as Gulf Arab states remain in confrontation with Iran:
• The United States retains a central military role in the region.
• Gulf states remain dependent on American protection.
• Iran remains strategically constrained.
From this perspective, regional division reinforces the wider hegemonic structure because no local balance independent of external power is allowed to emerge. This is the Divide and Rule mechanism.
The argument is that rivalry itself becomes part of the system’s stability.
Hegemony - Dominance by one power over a wider political or strategic system.
Dependency structure - A system in which weaker states rely heavily on a stronger external power for security or economic stability.
---
4. The European Parallel After the Cold War
A similar debate emerged in Europe after the end of the Cold War.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was initially discussion about creating a broader inclusive European security architecture that would incorporate both Western Europe and post-Soviet Russia into a shared framework.
Institutions linked to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe were viewed by some as a possible foundation for such a system.
The idea was that Europe could potentially move beyond Cold War bloc politics entirely.
This could have meant:
• A genuinely pan-European security framework.
• Reduced military confrontation between Russia and the West.
• Less dependence on opposing military blocs.
• A long-term continental security arrangement involving all major European powers.
However, this was not ultimately the path that emerged.
Instead, the post-Cold War order developed around the expansion of NATO eastwards.
Supporters of NATO expansion argued that Eastern European states freely chose membership for their own protection and stability.
Critics argued that this prevented the emergence of a genuinely inclusive European security system and instead preserved Cold War strategic logic under new conditions.
From that perspective:
• Russia became increasingly marginalised from European security structures.
• Europe remained strategically tied to American military leadership.
• Bloc politics gradually re-emerged.
• Mutual distrust deepened over time.
The argument is therefore not simply about military expansion itself, but about which type of post-Cold War order Europe ultimately chose to build.
Pan-European security architecture - A continent-wide security framework including both Western Europe and Russia.
Bloc politics - International relations organised around rival alliance systems.
---
5. The Helsinki Vision and the Lost Post-Cold War Settlement
The roots of this debate can be traced back to the Helsinki Accords and the wider East-West diplomatic process that later evolved into the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The Helsinki framework attempted to create a pan-European system based on:
• Sovereign equality.
• Non-intervention.
• Dialogue between rival blocs.
• Collective stability through cooperation rather than domination.
Importantly, both the Western and Soviet blocs participated.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, some policymakers hoped this process could evolve into a genuinely inclusive European security architecture involving both Western Europe and post-Soviet Russia.
The idea was that Europe might finally move beyond Cold War bloc politics altogether and develop a shared continental security framework.
However, that vision ultimately gave way to a different settlement centred around:
• NATO expansion.
• Continued American strategic leadership.
• The preservation of Atlantic security structures.
Supporters argued this brought stability and protection to Eastern Europe.
Critics argued it prevented the emergence of a broader cooperative European order that included Russia as a permanent participant rather than an external rival.
The debate therefore was never simply about military expansion itself, but about which type of post-Cold War Europe would ultimately emerge.
Helsinki Accords - 1975 East-West agreement establishing principles for European security and cooperation.
Inclusive security architecture - A security system designed to include rival powers within the same framework rather than organising them into opposing blocs.
6. Why This Debate Matters Today
The wider issue concerns whether regions can eventually move from systems based on rivalry, expressed in a bloc politics and Alliances, and external dependency; towards systems based on collective security arrangements.
For supporters of inclusive security models, the long-term objective would be:
• Reduced geopolitical fragmentation.
• Less reliance on external military guarantors.
• Greater regional autonomy.
• Security through mutual accommodation rather than permanent confrontation.
However, achieving such a transition would be extremely difficult, especially immediately after wars, sanctions, proxy conflicts, and long periods of distrust.
That is why the Strait of Hormuz remains not only a strategic waterway, but also a symbol of a much larger debate about regional order, sovereignty, and the future structure of global power.
NEXT
Pt. 2
Has security through mutual cooperation rather than permanent confrontation ever been tried? What lessons can be drawn from previous attempts?
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean, keep it lean