It has been said — and the wisest words are those of the discerning — that “geography is God’s shadow upon the earth, and history is humanity’s shadow upon nature.”
From geography, we turn to the consultative meeting held last Wednesday night in Riyadh, bringing together the foreign ministers of a number of Arab and Islamic states in an effort to address Iran’s unrestrained crisis across the region.
Saudi diplomacy has long been marked by decisiveness and resolve in confronting volatile issues that threaten the security and stability of brotherly nations and neighboring countries, especially in times of intensifying crises. This was clearly reflected in the tone and substance of the statement issued after the meeting.
What is both striking and alarming is that, on the very night of this consultative gathering, Iran’s intentions seemed unmistakable. Missile strikes targeted the Saudi capital and several Gulf states, as though conveying a preemptive message: nothing will deter it from pressing ahead in its reckless course, heedless of consequences.
The fatigued Iranian leadership appears to be escaping forward, exporting crises born of nearly five decades of political recklessness.
In doing so, Iran disregards the Westphalian understanding of neighboring states as sovereign entities, states whose populations cannot be terrorized, nor their territorial integrity threatened. The repercussions of such actions, both for Iran itself and for the broader security of the Middle East, will be grave and costly. They will also cast a long shadow over its relations with the countries and peoples of the region, who will not remain passive in the face of threats to their stability and resources.
How, then, should one characterize Iran’s current condition, now in the third week of confrontations that have set it back significantly on multiple fronts: military, civilian, and, perhaps most critically, moral?
Before answering, it is worth recalling that regional capitals — foremost among them Riyadh, Doha, and Muscat — have spared no effort in seeking to shield Iran first, and the region as a whole, from the ravages of war.
Today, Tehran appears like a drowning man intent on dragging others down with him to the depths, a Samson-like vision of bringing the temple down upon himself and his enemies alike. Yet the truth remains: hatred yields nothing, and hostility does not build bridges for dialogue; it erects walls in hearts and minds.
History records remind us that wars, no matter how fierce, must eventually come to an end. Iran itself has lived this reality in modern times, enduring nearly eight years of brutal war with Iraq. In the end, Khomeini “drank the poison chalice” — meaning he accepted a ceasefire — after the country had suffered devastating battles with Iraqi forces and even with the United States during Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, when it lost more than half its naval fleet.
But what follows the end of war? Peoples endure. The memory of nations preserves what has unfolded, and elders recount to younger generations the trials of the past, whether marked by good or ill.
Between geography and history, the human story unfolds. Nations and societies emerge; civilizations rise; generations follow one another. At times they cooperate, at times they clash; they experience periods of harmony and others of discord, particularly among states bound by inescapable geographic proximity — a condition that cannot be altered or exchanged.
In his seminal work “The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate”, American author Robert D. Kaplan underscores the enduring power of geography: its capacity to foster prosperity when border tensions recede and the threats posed by “fated neighbors” diminish, or, conversely, to fuel instability when they intensify.
The danger in Iran’s recent conduct lies in deepening both regional and global rejection of it. By persistently threatening international waterways, such as the Strait of Hormuz, it strikes at the very heart of the global economy and provokes major powers that will not hesitate to exert increasing force to compel a change in its course. The consequences will reverberate negatively, for decades, across its “fated neighbors.”
This prompts a fundamental question: does physical geography dictate human conflict, or can the will to live, coexist, and pursue pathways to peace transcend the challenges of what might be called “fated neighborhood”?
Iran must move beyond the paradigm of inevitable confrontation and embrace peaceful coexistence. Such is the measured message of the Riyadh consultations.
