At a time when Gulf countries are questioning their dependence on the US, continuing hostile actions against them would only jeopardize Iran’s strategic gains and push Arab countries back towards old agreements.
By Abdullah GÜL
On February 28, the United States and Israel shocked the world by carrying out attacks across Iran and killing the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Civilian casualties quickly mounted, including 150 civilians – mostly children – killed when US missiles struck an elementary school. Iran retaliated appropriately by attacking Israel and US bases throughout the Region and by closing off sea transit through the Strait of Hormuz. The unilateral aggression against Iran lacked international legitimacy and destabilized the entire Middle East.
Arab countries suffered retaliatory attacks from Iran because they host US bases, and countries around the world faced high economic costs from rising energy prices. The damage was also reputational for the Gulf countries, in terms of security and defense.
Then, on April 7, the New York Times published a detailed report on how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had convinced US President Donald Trump to attack Iran, a decision that must now be examined from two perspectives. First, it shows how easily the US can be drawn into a war. Of course, a nuclear-armed superpower must have extremely strong decision-making mechanisms when it comes to matters of war and peace. Second, it seems that the US victory in Venezuela caused the persuasion that led to Iran. The Trump administration thought it was invincible with the use of military force. But things turned out to be much more complicated and difficult in Iran.
By the time Americans realized that the only similarity between the two countries was their oil reserves, it was too late. The image of America locked in a conflict with Iran is deeply damaging. The US’s opponents used to be other superpowers like China and Russia, but now Iran has also entered the game.
Meanwhile, the Gulf states have suffered as a result of American actions. Trust was already damaged in 2019, when the US failed to act as a security guarantor after the attacks on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia. Now, US assets housed in the Gulf have become a vulnerability rather than a source of security. The US is no longer seen as a reliable security partner. The Gulf states will undoubtedly seek to diversify their partnerships – not just in defence, but also in other areas such as trade – and this will further weaken American primacy in the Region. China is likely to be the biggest beneficiary, especially after its easing of the Iran-Saudi rapprochement in 2023.
Iran, for all its losses, has proven that it can counter and resist American and Israeli attacks. The internal turmoil and regime change that many in the West expected did not occur. Instead, Iran defended itself as its people united in the face of the external aggressor. However, Iran must act with caution. It should not confuse short-term advantages with long-term victories. Pride in challenging more powerful adversaries could lead Iran’s leaders to pursue a maximalist approach in pressing their demands. But that would be counterproductive. Instead, the Iranian leadership should seize the moment and capitalize on what it has achieved.
Two key issues deserve closer scrutiny: Iran’s domestic political order and well-being; and the broader Regional order, which offers numerous opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation.
Even if it seems that Iran can sustain this conflict for much longer, Iranian leaders must consider the price they will pay for it. The primary responsibility of any government is to ensure the well-being of the country’s people. Since both the state and the people are suffering great losses, the highest priority should be to ensure the lifting of sanctions and improve the living conditions of Iranians. Moreover, the strategic advantage that Iran has gained over the Strait of Hormuz is not permanent. Alternative routes are being developed. Iranian leaders must also consider future relations with the Gulf states.
Israel has long sought to push Saudi Arabia to join the US in confronting Iran, but the Kingdom has wisely refrained. Iranian leaders should recognize this. They should also acknowledge that their reliance on Regional proxies has not served them well. It has simply pushed Arab states toward Iran’s adversaries.
At a time when Gulf states are questioning their dependence on the US, continuing hostile actions against them would only jeopardize Iran’s strategic gains and push Arab states back towards old agreements. For the Region to reach a new equilibrium, Iran and Saudi Arabia must normalize their relations. That alone would be a major step forward, because it would allow them to stop seeing each other as a permanent threat. Moreover, Regional normalization among Muslim countries would allow progress on the Palestinian issue. Here, Iran must consider its own history. Can it honestly say that its approach to Palestine has helped? If anything, Iranian rhetoric has served as an excuse for Israel to do whatever it wants – and with unlimited military assistance from the US.
Iran must avoid a maximalist stance. It can achieve sanctions relief, end the blockade, and make progress toward reintegration into the international community, all without surrendering. But the window of opportunity is closing. After the U.S. midterm elections in November, the Trump administration will feel less urgency to reach a deal. It may even seek revenge for the potential Republican defeat in the election. But just as Iran must act quickly before its negotiating position deteriorates, others must heed its fears and perceptions of threat.
Decades of hostility toward the country have only served to strengthen its position. The challenge for all parties is to reconcile the regime’s fears with the right of Iranians to flourish peacefully and securely.
(The author is former President of the Republic of Turkey)