The current crisis cannot be reduced to a mere US-Iranian dispute that has recently escalated into a direct confrontation. It is inaccurate to frame the entire situation as a deep-rooted misunderstanding between Tehran and Washington. While the US-Iranian dimension of the crisis is significant, dangerous, and critical, it is not the only dimension.
Iran, both before and after the current crisis, remains a major power in the Middle East. It is a state with a deeply rooted history and a strategic position that qualifies it to play prominent roles, particularly given its substantial economic capabilities. In this sense, Iran, much like others, can be viewed as a historical and geographical reality that must be coexisted with.
Iran has the right to a prominent role in this pluralistic Middle East. This region is supposed to accommodate Arabs, Turks, Persians, and Kurds. It is also supposed to accommodate Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and Jews. In the history of this region, as in the history of Europe, for example, there are dark chapters, wars, and injustices; however, the ailments of history can only be treated through the art of learning from them, and by transitioning from the dream of hegemony to the rhetoric of coexistence.
For many years, the Arabs - or at least some of them - avoided discussing the "Iranian problem." They preferred to give it time, hoping it would bring a shift in Iran's rhetoric toward its neighbors. Furthermore, they preferred this approach to keep the spotlight on their conviction that Israel is the primary cause of regional instability. Iranian authorities did not take this Arab stance into account, instead treating it as mere cover for hidden policies.
The truth is that Arab countries tried extensively to maintain an ongoing and productive dialogue with Iran, despite their reservations about Iran's aggressive regional policies, particularly in the Arab arena. President Ali Abdullah Saleh used to criticize the arming and training of the Houthis while avoiding naming Iran, in order to keep the door open for dialogue. Even when Iran established a presence on Sudanese territory, Egyptian authorities avoided attacking it or souring relations. Lebanese authorities adopted a similar stance, despite their knowledge of the influx of Revolutionary Guard officers into Lebanon and, of course, without the permission of the legitimate authorities.
It can be said that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, collectively and individually, made continuous efforts to establish normal relations with Iran. This meant cooperative relations governed by the principles of international law and the values of good neighborliness. The Beijing agreement, signed by Saudi Arabia and Iran, was a significant step in this context.
The countries of the region handled the US-Iranian dispute with a high degree of responsibility. From the earliest hours of the clash, the GCC states openly declared their position, calling for prioritizing the language of dialogue and establishing diplomacy as the sole path to solutions. It can be clearly stated that Tehran miscalculated the Gulf stance; instead, it chose a provocative and dangerous approach in responding to US attacks. It opted to expand the scope of the war, under the pretext of targeting US sites in several countries. This is how Iran justified its attacks on the GCC countries and Jordan.
It can be said that the Gulf countries, led by Saudi Arabia, intervened on more than one occasion with the administration of President Donald Trump to prevent the US-Iranian war from sliding into more dangerous territory. The Gulf states adopted this rational and responsible position despite the damage they sustained from Iranian missile and drone attacks, or from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital to the countries of the region by all metrics. The GCC states maintained their composure, limiting their actions to countering attacks on their own territories.
This coincided with information circulated by relevant circles about renewed Iranian efforts to arm the Houthis, and the transfer of Revolutionary Guard officers to Iraq to manage the operations of loyalist factions. The accuracy of this information was quickly confirmed by threats by the Houthis, as well as by missiles and drones launched from Iraqi territory against targets in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Even when forced to respond to the groups that targeted it from Iraqi territory, Saudi Arabia did not abandon its stance calling for prioritizing diplomacy in the pursuit of a solution to halt the US-Iranian confrontation. It is within this context that the recent phone call between President Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman took place.
The region was bracing for difficult days when Trump announced the suspension of the "surrender strike," expecting Iran to respond by declaring its respect for the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. However, experience shows that obtaining a clear and definitive Iranian statement is an extremely difficult task.
Iranian responses are consistently mired in ambiguity and obfuscation. It is no exaggeration to say that aggressive and reckless Iranian behavior has opened new wounds in Gulf-Iranian relations, which were already far from perfect. From an arrogant tone in communication to threats accompanied by thorny messages, and attempts to impose hegemony over the choices of independent countries, these are all factors that have revived talk of the "Iranian problem."
Iran may be experiencing a struggle in its decision-making process following what befell its previous leadership, which is understandable; however, the Iranian behavior that attacked facilities in the GCC countries had already struck what Iran terms "good neighborly relations" - a concept it confines to its statements, rather than its policies and practices.
What is required is not verbal bandages for the wounds of good neighborly relations. What is required is a review of the policies that awakened all the anxieties of the Gulf states. It is necessary to abandon the inclination toward hegemony, discard the language of arrogance, and engage with neighboring countries using the vocabulary of international law, so that the wounds of a casualty named "good neighborly relations" can be healed.
