by Khaled Abu Toameh
The international community should not confuse the eagerness of Iranian officials to host diplomatic meetings with any meaningful change in the regime's dangerous regional policies.
Iran's participation in discussions about "regional peace" does not, in the slightest, indicate that the Iranian regime is prepared to abandon the policies that have helped it comfortably to destabilize the Middle East for decades.
Had Saudi Arabia joined the Abraham Accords, it might have benefited from a really powerful security partnership – with Israel and the United States. Israel possesses extensive experience in intercepting missiles and drones, sophisticated intelligence capabilities and advanced military technology. Combined with American military power, these capabilities could have offered Saudi Arabia a level of protection and security cooperation that Turkey and Pakistan are unlikely to match. Riyadh's refusal to take that step has left the kingdom pursuing alternative security arrangements whose effectiveness seems hapless at best.
If Saudi Arabia cannot count on its partners to demonstrate military solidarity when it is attacked, what exactly is the purpose of the [Mecca Joint Defense Agreement]?
Rather than demonstrating that attacks against Saudi Arabia carry consequences for Iran and its proxies, the three countries appeared to be asking -- if not begging -- Iran for permission, or at least appealing to its goodwill, to stop the attacks. The Iranian regime doubtless -- and understandably -- interprets such diplomatic efforts not as evidence of regional strength, but as a sign that its neighbors are scared and reluctant to confront it.
For a regime such as Iran's that has repeatedly used military threats and proxy warfare to advance its interests, an approach based primarily on appeals and negotiations only reinforces that intimidation and terrorism work.
The international community should not confuse the eagerness of Iranian officials to host diplomatic meetings with any meaningful change in the regime's dangerous regional policies.
There can be no lasting regional security of any kind while the current Iranian regime, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, retains the ability to threaten its neighbors through armed proxies, maintain its program to acquire nuclear weapons, and brutalize its own people.
US President Donald J. Trump, unless he truly finishes the war that Iran started 47 years ago instead of just saying he did -- and eliminates Iran's bloodthirsty regime -- will sadly go down in history as a failure rather than as one of the great leaders of all time. This can happen only if he eliminates not just Iran's nuclear threat but also eliminates Iran's current regime. Otherwise we will all be here in ten minutes to deal with Iran's new nuclear program again.
Trump's party did not lose the midterm elections because of the war; they lost it because he actually chose not to win it. He evidently allowed himself to be persuaded by Vice President JD Vance and other isolationists that diplomacy with terrorists can be a viable plan. As Trump himself might say, "That is not how it works." Iran already proved as much with the fatal delay caused by the catastrophic Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding that Vance negotiated and that did not make it to sun-up.
Trump and other international leaders in Europe and the Middle East need to stop treating the Iranian regime as a potential partner in "regional stability" and start treating it as the principal source of instability that they must finish confronting -- not accommodating.
The October 26, 2026 meeting in Tehran between senior officials from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan exposed one of the biggest burlesques in the Middle East's emerging security arrangements: countries seeking protection against Iranian aggression are simultaneously negotiating with the Iranian regime about regional security. They seem to imagine that they are hedging their bets.
Saudi Arabia, which has faced threats from Iran and attacks by Tehran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen, is looking to Turkey and Pakistan for additional security guarantees. The three countries signed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement (MJDA) in August, apparently hoping to establish a regional security framework that would strengthen their ability to defend themselves and reduce their dependence on outside powers.
Yet representatives of all three countries immediately traveled to Tehran to meet Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and other senior officials in a seeming effort to quell the conflict.
How could diplomacy – always considered a form of cringing weakness by expansionist rulers such as Iran's – produce any kind of security so long as they continued to support armed militias and proxy groups throughout the Middle East?
Iran's participation in discussions about "regional peace" does not, in the slightest, indicate that the Iranian regime is prepared to abandon the policies that have helped it comfortably to destabilize the Middle East for decades.
Even as the delegations gathered in Tehran, Yemen's Iran-backed Houthis were launching new attacks against Saudi Arabia, including reported strikes targeting the kingdom's oil infrastructure and Riyadh airport.
Saudi Arabia was actually negotiating with the Iranian leadership while facing attacks from one of the armed groups sponsored by Iran.
The MJDA, signed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, supposedly treats any armed attack against one member as an attack against all.
The agreement, however, only raises questions about its members. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long sought to expand Turkey's influence in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world. Pakistan, meanwhile, which, in sham judicial proceedings, keeps allowing underaged Christian girls to be abducted into forced marriages with Muslim men (here, here and here) and sentences people to death for alleged "blasphemy" (here, here, here and here) has positioned itself as a righteous intermediary between Washington and Tehran. Saudi Arabia is just looking for additional protection after the war exposed the vulnerability of its territory and critical oil infrastructure.
As Saudi Arabia came under attack from the Houthis, neither Turkey nor Pakistan publicly demonstrated the kind of military support that the Saudis might have expected from their new defense partners. Instead, the kingdom's senior representatives rushed to Tehran to negotiate -- seemingly Iran's favorite pastime: talk, talk, talk to run out the clock.
Had Saudi Arabia joined the Abraham Accords, it might have benefited from a really powerful security partnership – with Israel and the United States. Israel possesses extensive experience in intercepting missiles and drones, sophisticated intelligence capabilities and advanced military technology. Combined with American military power, these capabilities could have offered Saudi Arabia a level of protection and security cooperation that Turkey and Pakistan are unlikely to match. Riyadh's refusal to take that step has left the kingdom pursuing alternative security arrangements whose effectiveness seems hapless at best.
If Saudi Arabia cannot count on its partners to demonstrate military solidarity when it is attacked, what exactly is the purpose of the MJDA?
Rather than demonstrating that attacks against Saudi Arabia carry consequences for Iran and its proxies, the three countries appeared to be asking -- if not begging -- Iran for permission, or at least appealing to its goodwill, to stop the attacks. The Iranian regime doubtless -- and understandably -- interprets such diplomatic efforts not as evidence of regional strength, but as a sign that its neighbors are scared and reluctant to confront it.
For a regime such as Iran's that has repeatedly used military threats and proxy warfare to advance its interests, an approach based primarily on appeals and negotiations only reinforces that intimidation and terrorism work.
Iranian security officials immediately appeared eager to portray the October 26 meeting as a diplomatic triumph. Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's National Security Council, claimed that the visit demonstrated that American threats had little influence on countries around the world. He described the meeting as evidence of a "new and positive atmosphere" in the region. For whom?
Such statements should be treated with caution. The Iranian regime has an obvious interest in presenting diplomatic engagement with its neighbors as recognition of its regional importance, particularly after years of confrontation with Israel, the United States, and its Arab neighbors.
What, however, does their version of regional security actually mean? Will Iran agree to stop supporting armed militias in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen? Will it end its financial, military, and logistical assistance to Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad? Will the Iranian regime accept that its neighbors have the right to defend themselves against threats emanating from Iran-backed groups?
Without addressing these issues, regional security is really nothing more than a diplomatic joke. Iran cannot reasonably demand that neighboring countries respect its security while continuing to support armed organizations that threaten their security.
The international community should not confuse the eagerness of Iranian officials to host diplomatic meetings with any meaningful change in the regime's dangerous regional policies.
There can be no lasting regional security of any kind while the current Iranian regime, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, retains the ability to threaten its neighbors through armed proxies, maintain its program to acquire nuclear weapons, and brutalize its own people.
US President Donald J. Trump, unless he truly finishes the war that Iran started 47 years ago instead of just saying he did -- and eliminates Iran's bloodthirsty regime -- will sadly go down in history as a failure rather than as one of the great leaders of all time. This can happen only if he eliminates not just Iran's nuclear threat but also eliminates Iran's current regime. Otherwise we will all be here in ten minutes to deal with Iran's new nuclear program again.
Trump's party did not lose the midterm elections because of the war; they lost it because he actually chose not to win it. He evidently allowed himself to be persuaded by Vice President JD Vance and other isolationists that diplomacy with terrorists can be a viable plan. As Trump himself might say, "That is not how it works." Iran already proved as much with the fatal delay caused by the catastrophic Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding that Vance negotiated and that did not make it to sun-up.
It is to be hoped that Trump will finally put this adolescent dream of negotiating with terrorists to rest and prove to the world that he really is the great historical president, which is why people elected him in the first place. They clearly hoped that he would complete solving the problems before him, not just leave them half-finished.
Trump and other international leaders in Europe and the Middle East need to stop treating the Iranian regime as a potential partner in "regional stability" and start treating it as the principal source of instability that they must finish confronting -- not accommodating.
- Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on X (formerly Twitter)
Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22970/trump-failure-to-win-iran-war
No comments:
Post a Comment