Gulf Stateshave their own security concerns emanating from population structures, from territorial disputes and from terrorism aggravated with the presence of migrant labour. The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict has its own impact on the threat perceptions of the region. However, the USoccupation of Iraqin 2003, Iranian nuclear ambitions and consequent rising international tension related with this issue, as well as the rise of religious extremism have contributed to the increasing security concerns of the states around the Gulf. Therefore, it was timely that the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research organized its 12 th Annual Conference in Abu Dhabi on 5th through 7 th of March 2007 with the title ‘’Arabian Gulf Security – Internal and External Challenges’’. The meeting became even more interesting as it followed the  Iranian President’s official visit to Saudi Arabia.

Discussions focused on the future of Iraqas signs for the withdrawal of US forces there became more pronounced. Many of the speakers were concerned that an early withdrawal of the occupying forces would aggravate sectarian animosity and would endanger the territorial integrity of the country. It was pointed out that the USpolicy was not convincing, not even for its allies. Kurds would push for federalism and furthering their autonomy if not asking for more. With investments booming in Northern Iraqa development may occur reminiscent of a little Dubai. However, it was indicated that it was essential to find an exit strategy for the occupying forces to leave Iraqand to end sectarian animosity. In that respect, it was a good sign that Iranand Saudi Arabiaseemed inclined to cooperate in achieving peace and stability in the wider region. It was also important that the neighbouring states of Iraqcontribute to a sound solution.

Moreover, it was emphasized that Iranhad emerged as the main player in the region. One analyst pointed out that while Iranwas not a weakling, it would be unlikely that it became a hegamon soon. There was a high rate of population increase and unemployment was also very high. As a major conventional power, it was not strong enough and was vulnerable to assymetric response. It has been long declared that it possesses chemical weapons capabilities. Therefore. recently debated nuclear capabilities were not the only concern. However, it so far lacked the delivery capabilities. Most of its tanks were obsolete and its air force was not much of a threat. As for its naval forces, it had the capability to disturb but not to harm. However, floating mines could be hard to cope with. Proxy and partner conflicts were to be foreseen, as in the case of supporting militias in Iraq. It was necessary to deter, to contain and to offer incentives to Iranto cooperate. Iranian nuclear ambitions were polarizing the region, inviting out of the region interventions and having effects on the economies of the region.

One participant from Iranstated that there was still a revolution going on in Iranand it was an outcome of Iranian national sovereignty. He recalled that Presidents Rafsandjani and Hatemy had focused on economic development but could not succeed in their objectives. He pointed out that Iranwas not an offensive state, but more of a defensive state. Iranian capabilities were exaggerated and intentions misinterpreted. As the ultimate aim of US was to unseat the Iranian regime, Iranfelt the necessity to build up its defenses. However, the situation was different with its relations with Israel. Anti-Israeli sentiments were  far  more than anti-Americanism and tended to dominate even its economic and commercial relations. As he put it, ‘’it was not only a policy but a passion’’, comparable with the Soviet Unionvs. Chinese relations of the ‘60s. ‘’ShiaCrescent’’ was an exaggeration and relations with Saudi Arabiawas not a reflection of Shia-Wahhabi divide but a result of the presence of US influence in the Arab peninsula. In fact, Iran’s fears of isolation and fears of US designs help shape Iranian policies. 90 percent of the problems with US were related to Israeli issues.

Increasing threats of terrorism were also discussed and as hosting migrant labour had its impact, it became primordial to formulate a strategy to confront it. Steps were also needed for the free flow of oil. Mention was made of security partnership with Europeliberating Kuwaitin 1991 and the İstanbul Initiative of NATO as positive models. EU had some experience to establish sub regional structures but was loosing credibility with recent developments in the region. There was need for models like the ASEAN and for eventual inclusion of Iranin the GCC structures. It was also indicated that not only military security was sufficient but social, economic and cultural aspects also needed to be considered. Earlier, before the occupation of Iraq, there was a certain balance of power among the major states in the region (Saudi Arabia, Iranand Iraq), in addition to the USmilitary umbrella. Excluding Iranand Iraqfrom the regional concepts would not be helpful. Interventions from beyond made the region dependant on others, which did not necessarily serve the region.