GCC seeks formal US security pact

A number of security options are set to be discussed at a meeting between president Barack Obama and the Gulf Arab leaders on May 13-14, against the backdrop of a potential nuclear deal with Iran, Taimur Khan reports.

US secretary of state John Kerry poses with foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Paris on May 8, 2015. Andrew Harnik, Pool/AFP Photo

NEW YORK // The UAE is hoping that talks between US president Barack Obama and GCC leaders next week will lead to a formal security arrangement between the traditional allies, the country’s ambassador to Washington said.

“We are looking for some form of security guarantee, given the behaviour of Iran in the region, given the rise of the extremist threat. We definitely want a stronger relationship,” Youssef Al Otaiba told a forum on US-Gulf relations at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington on Thursday. “In the past we have survived with a gentlemen’s agreement with the United States about security. I think today we need something in writing, we need something institutionalised.”

World powers led by the United States reached a framework agreement with Iran last month that set the parameters of a final deal that would put strict limits on Tehran’s nuclear programme for up to 15 years in exchange for sanctions relief. The deadline to reach a final accord is June 30.

The primary concern among Washington’s traditional Arab allies is that Iran will use its reinvigorated economy as well as unfrozen assets to increase the funding and arming of proxy groups and allied forces across the Middle East, and exploit the turmoil to expand its influence at their expense. Gulf leaders also fear that the nuclear deal may be the beginning of growing cooperation between Washington and Tehran and possible detente.

Mr Obama proposed the May 13-14 summit with GCC leaders after the framework nuclear deal was announced, in an attempt to reassure the sceptical allies by offering them some form of enhanced security guarantees, as well as political commitments over Iran and the backing of Gulf initiatives. A number of options are being discussed in meetings between White House officials and their Arab counterparts.

Those options include a US nuclear umbrella – retaliation in kind on any country that uses nuclear weapons against a Gulf ally; a non-binding security pact; greater security cooperation; and the sale of more advanced weapons systems such as the new F-35 fighter jet. The US is unlikely to agree to anything that would require intervention, such as a mutual defence treaty which some Gulf countries have advocated. The US legal imperative of maintaining Israel’s qualitative military advantage in the Middle East also makes the sales of the jets and other systems unlikely.

There are also differences between the White House and Gulf views of the causes of instability in the region and how best to address them. These differences are also complicating discussions over what the US is willing to provide. Mr Obama stressed recently that he sees the biggest threat to Gulf security not as Iran but a lack of democracy. According to an Arab source involved in the talks, White House officials have stressed that the US would not intervene in what they view as purely sectarian conflicts and that Gulf countries should not expect any assistance against internal opposition.

"I think the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It's going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries," Mr Obama told The New York Times last month. "That's a tough conversation to have, but it's one that we have to have."

The US secretary of state John Kerry and his Gulf counterparts met in Paris on Friday to discuss the security agreement ahead of the summit, which Arab officials hope will be a strategic dialogue to address a range of pressing issues in the region, from the war in Syria and the fight against ISIL to containing the threat from Iran.

Al Arabiya reported that a deal was under discussion that would see the US accede to Saudi and Turkish plans for the establishment of "safe zones" for rebels and refugees in the north and south of Syria, and possibly even a long-denied green light for anti-aircraft missiles for rebels, in exchange for Gulf support for the Iran deal. But many doubt Mr Obama would radically alter his hands-off position on Syria. "It's no secret [Mr Obama] is extremely reluctant to engage on that particular front," said Martin Indyk, executive vice president of the Brookings Institution, who spoke alongside Mr Al Otaiba. "I doubt that that's going to change because of a summit at Camp David."

Mr Al Otaiba said the UAE was keen that the talks include “a brainstorming session about how the GCC countries and the United States together collectively can come up with a containment strategy [for Iran] that doesn’t put countries at risk”.

But the differing priorities of the Arab countries and the US could put a strain on the talks and undermine the reassurance that the White House hopes to offer. While the GCC leaders place most emphasis on the need to contain Iran regionally, Washington is focused on the specific context of the nuclear talks and guarding against the conventional Iranian threat. “I think it’s going to be a difficult conversation,” said Mr Indyk.

US officials have also insisted that any security agreement will be a two-way street and must entail the GCC overcoming internal differences and working to integrate their defences.

Washington has long sought to increase the efficiency and operational integration of GCC militaries, especially on missile defence, and media reports indicate that Mr Obama wants this to be a key component of the agreement. But member countries have traditionally had divergent interests and preferred to engage with Washington on military issues bilaterally.

Mr Obama last year authorised the sale of weapons to the GCC as a bloc, but so far it remains an unused option. But the unprecedented regional turmoil and shared threats may create a new opening for GCC military integration.

However, Mr Al Otaiba tempered expectations on the issue, saying the UAE was conditioning any talks about military integration on more robust and streamlined US military assistance to the UAE and other Gulf countries.

Interoperability is a long-term goal but “that’s not going to come out of one meeting”, he said. “First we need to implement a vision for regional security architecture” that takes into account that “we are living in a new world”. Gulf countries long pushed by the US to be more assertive are fighting in two separate conflicts, Yemen and Syria. “That new world has to be matched with what our defence needs are,” he added.

The foreign military sales process in Washington is “incredibly frustrating” and the UAE, which has fought in six wars with the US, should be subject to a more streamlined process, Mr Al Otaiba said. “These are things we are looking to clear up,” he said, adding, “then you can have a conversation” about interoperability.

Many observers think the most likely outcome of the upcoming talks, on top of arms sales and other immediate tactical cooperation, is a framework agreement for a longer-term security arrangement that will mostly likely be fleshed out by the next US administration.

It is “not something we’re going to see immediately in place after Camp David, but a work plan presumably will be announced at Camp David in which ministers and officials and then eventually leaders will work on for the coming years,” said Derek Chollet, a former US assistant secretary of defence.