STEPPING STONES TO SECURITY. Evaluating Temporary International Administration of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb as a Maritime Security Option

NOT ONLY ARE THE TUNB ISLANDS A MILITARY PROBLEM BUT THEY ARE ALSO POLITICALLY DISPUTED BY EMIRATES

Executive Summary

The disputed islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb occupy a position of strategic importance disproportionate to their physical size. Situated near the Strait of Hormuz, they overlook one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints, through which a substantial share of global seaborne energy trade passes. Over the past five decades, the islands have evolved from the subject of a dormant territorial dispute into heavily militarized positions capable of supporting surveillance, missile operations, unmanned systems, and maritime interdiction.

This paper evaluates whether, in the context of an armed conflict involving attacks on commercial navigation and regional states, a temporary international or coalition-administered security regime could provide a means of separating the immediate military problem from the unresolved sovereignty dispute. Rather than determining ownership by force, such an arrangement would seek to deny the continued military use of disputed territory while preserving the legal positions of all parties pending peaceful resolution through negotiation, arbitration, or other mutually accepted legal mechanisms.

The paper does not argue that sovereignty should be decided through military action. Instead, it examines whether temporary administration and verified demilitarization could reduce regional instability, strengthen maritime security, and create conditions more conducive to long-term diplomatic settlement.

Introduction

The Strait of Hormuz has become more than a maritime passage. It is a strategic system in which geography, military posture, commercial confidence, insurance markets, diplomacy, and energy security continuously interact.

The military significance of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb derives not from their economic value but from their location. Control of these positions provides observation over shipping routes, locations for surveillance assets, and forward positions from which defensive or offensive systems may influence maritime operations.

The islands' disputed legal status distinguishes them from uncontested sovereign territory and raises complex questions when they become integrated into active military operations. If disputed territory is used to support attacks affecting international navigation, should the international community evaluate only the immediate military threat, or should it also consider temporary security arrangements designed to prevent recurring militarization while preserving competing sovereignty claims?

This paper explores that question.

Historical Background

The dispute surrounding Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb predates the establishment of the United Arab Emirates in 1971. Competing historical claims by Iran and the rulers of Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah were shaped by shifting patterns of administration, British influence in the Gulf, and differing interpretations of historical title.

The legal circumstances differ among the islands. Abu Musa was subject to a memorandum of understanding that expressly preserved competing sovereignty claims while allowing limited Iranian military presence. Greater and Lesser Tunb were occupied by Iranian forces after negotiations with Ras al-Khaimah failed.

Because no mutually accepted judicial determination has resolved these competing claims, sovereignty remains contested.

Militarization and Maritime Security

Over subsequent decades, the islands have assumed increasing operational significance.

Their location permits deployment of:

• coastal surveillance systems;

• anti-ship missile batteries;

• air-defence assets;

• unmanned aerial systems;

• naval logistics facilities; and

• maritime observation posts.

When integrated with mainland facilities along Iran's southern coast, these positions contribute to a layered maritime surveillance and coastal defence network.

Whether viewed as defensive infrastructure or coercive capability depends upon broader strategic circumstances. During periods of regional crisis, however, military systems located on the islands inevitably influence commercial shipping, naval planning, insurance assessments, and perceptions of navigational risk.

The Policy Question

The central question is not who ultimately owns the islands.

The immediate policy question is whether disputed territory should continue functioning as an active military platform while sovereignty remains unresolved.

One possible policy response is temporary security administration following neutralization of offensive military capabilities. Under this model:

• no party's sovereignty claim would be recognized or relinquished;

• offensive military systems would be removed or disabled;

• remilitarization would be prevented through monitoring or security arrangements; and

• final ownership would remain subject to peaceful diplomatic or legal resolution.

This approach seeks to separate military necessity from territorial adjudication.

Potential Strategic Benefits

Supporters of such an approach identify several possible advantages.

First, demilitarization could reduce immediate military pressure upon commercial shipping operating through the Strait of Hormuz.

Second, removing offensive systems from disputed territory may lower risks of repeated escalation involving nearby states.

Third, preserving rather than prejudging sovereignty may reduce incentives for either claimant to reject future negotiations solely because military realities have already determined political outcomes.

Fourth, a temporary security arrangement could reassure regional partners while avoiding the perception that the objective is permanent territorial redistribution.

Finally, a defined transition mechanism could reduce uncertainty surrounding the future status of the islands.

Legal and Diplomatic Challenges

The proposal nevertheless faces substantial legal and diplomatic questions.

International law generally distinguishes between military operations undertaken during armed conflict and long-term administration of territory. Any temporary security arrangement would require careful legal justification and would almost certainly be controversial.

Likely objections include:

• concern that temporary administration could become indefinite;

• fears of creating precedent for intervention in territorial disputes;

• disagreement regarding the legal basis for continued administration after active hostilities;

• opposition from states supporting Iran's sovereignty claims; and

• questions regarding the composition and authority of any international security force.

Addressing these concerns would require clearly defined objectives, transparency regarding administration, and predetermined mechanisms for terminating the arrangement.

Alternative Models

Several alternative approaches merit comparison.

Status Quo Restoration

Military operations conclude and Iranian administration resumes.

Advantages include simplicity and avoidance of new administrative structures.

Disadvantages include the potential return of military systems that contributed to the original security concerns.

Verified Demilitarization

Military capabilities are removed while administration remains otherwise unchanged, accompanied by international monitoring.

This minimizes changes in territorial control but depends heavily upon verification and continued compliance.

Temporary International Administration

Security responsibilities are assumed temporarily by an internationally authorized mechanism pending diplomatic resolution.

This seeks to separate military security from sovereignty but requires broad political support and substantial diplomatic effort.

Negotiated Bilateral Settlement

Iran and the UAE reach agreement directly concerning administration or sovereignty.

While potentially the most durable outcome, this option has proven difficult over decades of unsuccessful negotiations.

Regional and Economic Implications

Because the Strait of Hormuz functions simultaneously as a military and commercial corridor, changes in security conditions extend beyond naval operations.

Commercial shipping, marine insurance, energy pricing, investment confidence, and regional diplomacy all respond to perceptions of navigational risk.

Accordingly, policy decisions concerning the islands cannot be evaluated solely through military analysis. Their effects upon commercial confidence and regional stability may ultimately prove equally significant.

Conclusion

Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb occupy a unique position at the intersection of disputed sovereignty and contemporary maritime security.

Their strategic significance lies less in their physical characteristics than in their capacity to influence one of the world's most important maritime corridors.

Temporary international administration represents one possible policy option for separating immediate military concerns from unresolved territorial claims. Whether such an approach would ultimately prove lawful, politically sustainable, or strategically effective would depend upon its legal basis, international support, implementation, duration, and clearly defined exit conditions.

The broader strategic challenge remains unchanged: preserving freedom of navigation while reducing incentives for repeated militarization of disputed territory. Any durable solution will likely require both credible security arrangements and a peaceful mechanism capable of addressing the underlying sovereignty dispute without allowing military realities alone to determine its outcome.

Endnotes

1. UN Charter, Articles 2(4) and 51.

2. 1971 Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and Sharjah concerning Abu Musa.

3. Public statements of the United Arab Emirates regarding the disputed islands.

4. Historical documentation concerning British administration of the Trucial States.

5. Selected International Court of Justice jurisprudence on territorial sovereignty and effective administration.

6. Literature on maritime security and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

7. Bell, Frank J. Blue Web Doctrine: Maritime Strategy for the Twenty-First Century. 2026.