US-Saudi nuclear deal: Beyond the Strait of Hormuz

This article is authored by Sanjay Turi and Bhimmaya Tamang.

In the wake of the world remembering the 81st anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, the current president of the UN, Antonio Guterres, says that peace is not secured through fear and might, but is built through trust. Since the world is witness to the fact that countries having nuclear weapons are in a better position to negotiate in terms of their national security architecture, the ongoing war in Ukraine and Iran have already encouraged countries across the globe to pursue nuclear weapons. When the world is struggling to fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the US under President Donald Trump signing a nuclear deal with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia seems to be paving the way for dismantling the idea of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As this deal does not talk about clear prohibitory measures and remains open-ended for the next 30 years, it may be expected to go beyond civil use of nuclear energy. Here, just to counter Iranian influence in the region, the US has signed a civil nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, which contradicts the very idea of a US-led global nuclear order, where the US can often be seen dictating terms and conditions around the world regarding non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, beyond challenging Iranian influence in the region, the US’s idea behind signing this deal is to strengthen the Saudi-Israel relationship in a larger context; this agreement additionally sends a message to Iran that Saudi Arabia, in line with the Iranian regime, is also ready to acquire nuclear weapons in the future if needed. However, this deal directly challenges the American legitimacy of a responsible global superpower, which in recent times has always maintained transactional relationships with its partners, giving utmost priority to its national interest. Nevertheless, the American hegemonic identity has recently witnessed a drastic decline, especially under President Donald Trump, as he has consistently prioritised his national interest, forgetting that the US is known for maintaining political diplomacy across the globe. Since the US, under President Trump, has in recent years pursued a more transactional approach to its relationships with countries around the world, countries heavily dependent on the US for finance and defence have begun to diversify their bilateral and multilateral ties, giving an edge to American competitors in international forums.

Strait of Hormuz (AFP/Representational)

Since the Mecca Defence Pact is a result of the ongoing Iran war, which actually exposed the American security guarantee against Iran in the region, these countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, are looking for an independent and reliable security umbrella, reducing their dependency on the US. At least on paper, it seems that the signatories of this pact have moved away from American dependency in terms of their national regional security architecture. However, history is a witness to the fact that this pact is bound to fail sooner or later. Since this region, historically analysing, is contested among several powers to become the regional hegemon, it is very natural for them not to agree on a common set of goals, given that these powers already have several differences among themselves. However, the three major powers which have been contesting for a long time to become the regional hegemon and flagbearer of Islam are Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey. Given the contextual understanding of Islamic Shari’a law, becoming the leader of the Islamic world is very much about going against contemporary western ideas and values. As long as a country is associated with western ideas and values, it is practically not possible for it to become the true leader of the Islamic world.

Although the Mecca agreement appears to prove that the US-led West Asia order is over, it actually seems to have served the US’ purpose. In this context, it would be fair to argue that the US is well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the signatories to this agreement. Saudi Arabia and Turkey do not have the potential to become true leaders or regional hegemons, as both are American allies. Turkey, which is a core member of NATO and Saudi Arabia, which is an important American ally in the region, are not in a position to claim leadership of the Islamic world. Post-Iran war, the US has realised that Iran has emerged as a true challenger of American hegemony in the region. If Iran’s power is not checked, the confidence Iran has gained in this war will become a genuine threat to American influence in the Gulf, provided that Iran has been continuously trying to become the regional hegemon in West Asia. Many scholars argue that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are like puppet states indirectly helping the US to have control over the region. The ongoing war in the region has not only exposed the American hegemonic status, but it has also proved that Iran, though not so much powerful in terms of economy, has the potential to carry what a country really needs to become the leader of the Islamic world. The US may be of the opinion that the money from Saudi Arabia, defence technology from Turkey and nuclear weapons from Pakistan can be collectively used to create deterrence against Iran in the region. Therefore, this trilateral security agreement or the Mecca Defence Pact will most likely play a balancing role against Iran in the West Asian region. In return, this defence pact will not only relieve pressure on American security responsibilities but also give these countries a sense of security beyond American dependency, indirectly crushing the Iranian dream of becoming a regional hegemon in West Asia. Additionally, the idea behind forming this agreement in the name of the holiest place of Islam, ‘Mecca’, is a strategic move against Iran, which intends to reroute the Islamic sentiment from Iranian/Shia leadership towards a Saudi-Pak-Turkey-led Sunni group’s leadership.

However, critics say this defence pact is unlikely to survive, as several such agreements, including the United Arab Republic, the Baghdad Pact, the Regional Cooperation for Development, and the Arab League, have failed in the past, as they preferred not to compromise their national interests. During the Suez crisis in 1956, when Egyptian President Abdel Nasser captured the Suez Canal, it was jointly attacked by Britain, France and Israel in return. Since Pakistan was a member of the Britain-led Baghdad Pact at that time, its sympathies were with Egypt, as both countries had a majority Sunni population in common. The then-Prime Minister of Pakistan, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, said that ‘zero plus zero is always zero’, indicating the sharp decline of any organisations formed out of Islamic/religious identity. Therefore, in this context, it would not be wrong to assume that this defence pact is made to fail sooner or later. However, in a shorter time, it is expected to give the US an edge over Iran, as the US seems to have shifted its responsibility to the signatories of the Mecca Defence Pact. Since this pact has almost NATO-like similar terms and conditions, Iran, geographically surrounded by three member countries, would think twice before attacking Saudi Arabia now. And that is when longtime-waiting President Trump will try to exit this war, as the mid-year election is around the corner in the US. Hence, although the Mecca Defence Pact is meant to collapse in the long run, it is designed to benefit the US in the shorter term.

Ever since the US-Israel War on Iran started on February 28, India’s energy needs have been hit very hard post the Hormuz blockade. India is possibly the most affected country in South Asia, as India is heavily dependent on energy imports from the Strait of Hormuz. Since the West Asian countries, particularly the Gulf, have, in recent times, significantly lost trust and confidence in the American security architecture, it is the best time for India to engage with the region by giving greater importance to its Look West Policy.

(The views expressed are personal)

This article is authored by Sanjay Turi, doctoral candidate, Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and Bhimmaya Tamang, independent researcher, Sikkim Manipal University, Sikkim.