Ecology and Environmental Challenges of the Persian Gulf

The extreme salinity and temperature fluctuations of the Persian Gulf waters have created unique marine and coastal ecosystems, with numerous benefits to Iran and neighboring countries. However, human activities, including rapid coastal development, land-based pollution, oil and gas extraction, and shipping, are threatening the survival of these ecosystems. With long shorelines, a large coastal population, and locally important fisheries and tourism-related jobs, Iran has a lot at stake in the degradation of its marine and coastal environments. However, it is not too late to put a stop to further degradation. This article recommends a number of targeted actions at the local, national, and regional levels to address the threats to the Persian Gulf ’s environment and protect this important renewable resource.     

American Ascendance and British Retreat in the Persian Gulf Region

On 18 February 1946 a mutiny broke out in HMIS Talwar, a Royal Indian Navy signals school in Bombay. Over the following days the disturbance spread to over 10,000 men, 66 ships and shore establishments, while there was civilian rioting in several major cities. The causes of the mutiny have traditionally been attributed to discontent over service conditions, racial abuse and the influence of Indian nationalism, firmly framing the ‘strike’ as part of India's anti-colonial struggle. Such explanations have been applied uniformly across the force, regardless of the wide-scale nature of the disturbances, and with little focus on those who remained loyal. By examining the experiences of units other than Talwar, this article challenges the predominant nationalist narrative of the mutiny, questioning the notion that overarching causes existed across the navy, and demonstrating how motives and reactions were more fractured and complex. It will also reconsider the connection between the mutiny and civilian rioting in Bombay, introducing organised crime as a notable influence, and examine the role of the preceding RAF ‘strikes’ and political discourses in framing the actions of the naval ratings.     

Nuclear energy and proliferation risks: myths and realities in the Persian Gulf

The use of civil nuclear power is set for major expansion among the world's developing economies. The pursuit of nuclear energy technology offers energy-hungry developing nations access to reliable large-scale electricity supplies with very low carbon emissions. But this climate-friendly energy solution comes at a security price. Historically, one third of the 30 countries that possess civil nuclear energy programmes have weaponized them. Security threats from the proliferation of nuclear weapons might become an important barrier to the further expansion of the global nuclear energy market. Nowhere is this tension more acute than in the Persian Gulf. Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) illustrate how the establishment of civil nuclear energy programmes can pose different levels of security risk depending on a country's foreign policy. While the UAE has embraced international transparent nuclear safeguards, Iran has rejected the concerns of the international community and continues to develop uranium enrichment technology that may soon lead towards a viable nuclear weapon. However, the use of proliferation-resistant thorium rather than uranium as a nuclear fuel technology might significantly reduce the threat of plutonium weaponization in Arab states. The UAE nuclear energy model deserves the political support of western nations as the best compromise between nuclear energy expansion and nuclear security threats. This article discusses the myths and realities surrounding the diversion of civil nuclear energy programmes for military use in the Persian Gulf region, and argues that proliferation of atomic weapons is a political choice, not a certain technical inevitability.     

Britain's Decision to Withdraw from the Persian Gulf: A Pattern Not a Puzzle

The reasons for the British decision to withdraw from the Gulf are highly contentious. While some scholars have focused on short-term considerations, especially the devaluation of sterling towards the end of 1967, in the British determination to quit the Gulf, others have concentrated on longer-term trends in British policy-making for the region. This article sides with the latter. Britain's Gulf role came under increasing scrutiny following the 1956 Suez crisis as part of an ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of Britain's Gulf presence. In this sense, British withdrawal fitted into a wider pattern of British decolonisation. By the 1960s, the Treasury, in particular, strongly questioned the necessity and cost-effectiveness of the maintenance of empire in the Gulf to safeguard British economic interests there. Recent interpretations which seek to disaggregate the British decision to leave Southeast Asia from the decision to depart from the Gulf are also questionable. By mid-1967, it had already been determined that Britain would leave both regions by the mid-1970s, the only difference being that this decision was formally announced with respect to Southeast Asia, but not with regard to the Gulf. The devaluation of sterling in November 1967, therefore, merely hastened and facilitated decisions which had already been taken. Despite the end of formal empire in the Gulf, Britain did seek, not always successfully, to preserve its interests into the 1970s and beyond.     

20世纪70年代美国对波斯湾的“双柱＂政策

从二战结束到20世纪60年代末,波斯湾地区的国际关系发生了巨大变化：英国持续了一个世纪的海湾霸权已成强弩之末。1968年,英国政府宣布将于1971年从苏伊士运河以东(包括海湾地区)撤出,这为美苏进一步的竞争开辟了新场地。美国并未像1956年第二次中东战争后所为,直接填补真空,而是制定了一项新的海湾政策：“双柱”政策,     

Australia,the security council and the Iranian crisis of 1946: Liberal internationalism in practice

In the early months of 1946 Dr H.V. Evatt made a concerted effort to shape the newly formed Security Council as a security tribunal. He wanted the Security Council to be governed by the principles of the United Nations Charter, to adopt regular procedures, to have an investigatory function and to make determinations on the facts of each case, not on the basis of power politics. Evatt attempted to implement his policy during the Iranian crisis despite the opposition of all the great powers, including the United Kingdom. This episode reveals the commitment to liberal internationalism that marked Australian foreign policy during this period and demonstrates both the possibilities and limits of an ‘idealist’ foreign policy.