Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib
The Iran war will likely end in global disaster. Unfortunately, we have crossed the point where a deal on the nuclear file alone can stop the war. Iran has declared that it will not stop its strikes unless it has guarantees that the war will not be resumed. President Donald Trump has issued an ultimatum and set a deadline — after which the US will destroy bridges and power plants, undoubtedly prompting a retaliation. The world needs a comprehensive and sustainable solution that ensures the conflict will not be renewed after six months or a year.
At the heart of this solution lies the relations between Iran and the Arab Gulf states. The Gulf states view the US presence in the region as their protection against the Iranian threat. The Iranians, on the other hand, view the US presence as a threat. How can this dilemma be solved? The Gulf states and Iran need a reset. Along with a nuclear deal, a Gulf-Iran agreement could end the war and make sure it is not renewed.
One of the reasons the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was not sustained was its failure to address the issue of Iran’s destabilizing behavior in the neighborhood. At the same time, while some of the sanctions were lifted, Iran was not given any security guarantees. The regime in Tehran feels constantly under threat.
Let us be clear. Iranian strikes on the Gulf states are in no way morally or legally justifiable. These nations are understandably furious and feel betrayed. However, this is a moment where pragmatism is needed in order to de-escalate and bring stability. Both Iran and the Arab Gulf states need security guarantees. A solution must cater to both sides’ security needs and threat perceptions. Nevertheless, there is one big hurdle: there is no trust between these neighbors.
The American presence is disruptive. However, the Gulf states will not relinquish it and become, in their perception, prone to Iranian hegemony. Iranian security chief Ali Larijani, prior to his murder by an Israeli strike, issued a statement in which he affirmed that Iran does not seek to dominate its neighbors. However, the Gulf states are unlikely to believe this claim. Nonstate actors supported by Iran have spread chaos across the region and undermined Arab states. Also, Iranian officials have arrogantly stated in the past that Iran controls four Arab capitals.
In his post, Larijani also appealed to Muslim countries asking them for help. Despite its destabilizing behavior, Iran has, surprisingly enough, welcomed the Saudi-Pakistani joint defense agreement and previously called for a regional security architecture of which it can be a part. Currently, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Turkiye are engaged in a rapprochement. This could create the basis for a regional security architecture that streamlines relations among members, including between Iran and the Arab Gulf states.
The trust issue and the security void can be solved. Muslim countries that have good relations with both Iran and the Arab Gulf states could deploy troops on both sides of the Gulf under the supervision of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The former prime minister of Qatar has suggested greater integrated security among the Arab Gulf states, along with support from Pakistan and Turkiye.
Gradually, American forces could be replaced by Muslim troops. The Gulf states cannot just tell US troops to leave overnight. This must involve a process. As for Iran, the constitution forbids foreign bases on its soil. However, the constitution can be amended by parliament.
This would also be a good off-ramp for the US. The American public, especially the “America First” crowd, favors withdrawal from the region and a focus on domestic affairs. However, this preference stumbled with the strategic reality that the US needs to protect its interests by fending off Iranian threats. The deployment of troops from Muslim countries could cater to this strategic need. It would also prevent a potentially more dramatic outcome to this war.
Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, stated last month that Iran was receiving “military cooperation” from Russia and China and described them as “strategic partners.” Europe would prefer to see troops from Muslim countries in Iran rather than Russian bases. The US would also prefer this option to having Chinese bases in Iran, especially as Beijing is being touted as a guarantor in any future talks between Iran and Washington.
However, this would only partly solve the problem between Iran and the Gulf states. Iran’s main threat comes from the American bases in the region. These states, on the other hand, see the proxies funded and operated by Iran as the main threat. How can this be solved? Iran must commit to cut its ties with these nonstate actors or at least pressure them to refrain from all subversive acts in return for the Gulf states bringing an end to the US’ military presence.
In return for Tehran cutting off its proxies, the Gulf states and Turkiye should enter into security agreements with Iran and provide financial and economic incentives to jumpstart the country’s economy after the war. This could be feasible if sanctions were lifted after a nuclear deal is reached.
This would also create a graceful exit for Trump. He could say that Iran has given up its proxies and no longer constitutes a threat to regional stability. Nevertheless, this would not be as easy as it seems. Nonstate actors have a partially domestic agenda, so Iran does not have an on/off button to shut them down overnight. However, Tehran must be ready to discuss all of its proxies. This is a process that should be started with a clear framework, action plan and deliverables.
This arrangement would allow Trump to fend off Israeli pressure to continue the war. Tel Aviv cannot fight on its own. This would end the war and make sure it does not restart after a few months or years. Otherwise, if the war is left to play out, the region and the entire world are heading toward an uncontrolled escalation that will result in disaster.
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese nongovernmental organization focused on Track II.
