The majority of countries in the region are calculating their next moves based on what will happen after the upcoming U.S. midterm elections in a week, and whether President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will proceed with a new war against Iran, regardless of the election results in Israel and the United States.
The most urgent task at the Tehran meeting, which brought together senior officials from the Mecca Defense Pact member countries Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey, alongside Iranian officials, was to achieve a breakthrough in the crisis that could ease tensions and avert the planned war. Only then could discussions proceed on areas of regional cooperation, ranging from security to politics and economics. For instance, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi proposed the “establishment of a regional non-aggression pact” between the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Iran and Iraq.
However, this will not be possible without first reaching an American-Iranian settlement that removes the threat of war and allows dialogue to begin on contentious issues between the two countries. While the Tehran meeting was underway, reports emerged of a proposal presented by Qatar and Pakistan calling for mutual concessions between Washington and Tehran. These included opening the Strait of Hormuz within five days, lifting the American maritime blockade on Iranian ports, and releasing frozen deposits.
The American response soon followed, with Trump stating on Monday that the Strait of Hormuz was no longer a problem for Washington because oil was flowing through it at higher levels than before the war. His remarks suggested that the strait was no longer part of the negotiations, with Iran’s nuclear program now the primary issue.
Iran rejects the American narrative regarding the strait and maintains that the strategic waterway remains under its control. It has intensified its attacks on tankers crossing the Omani route under U.S. naval protection. Iran refuses to negotiate its nuclear program before its seven demands are met, including a complete cessation of the war on “all fronts,” including Lebanon, the lifting of the maritime blockade, the release of frozen deposits, compensation payments, and a withdrawal from the region.
Despite its importance in generating strong diplomatic momentum, the Tehran meeting does not appear to have bridged the gaps between American and Iranian positions. Moreover, there were no signs that Iran was willing to separate the war in Yemen and Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia from the crisis with the United States.
Iran is known to include civilian infrastructure across the Gulf region on its list of targets in response to any new American-Israeli attack. Notably, Houthi attacks have not subsided following the Tehran meeting, while Iran presents itself as a mediator and insists that the Houthis make their decisions independently of Tehran’s position. Saudi Arabia, however, finds this difficult to believe.
In light of these developments, the Tehran meeting can be said to have broken through regional barriers without easing tensions on the various fronts or finding a path toward de-escalation with the United States.
This increases the likelihood of war relative to the prospects for peace. Trump wants to prove to Iran and the world that, regardless of the midterm election results, he remains the supreme commander of U.S. forces and that the decision to go to war rests in his hands. As for Netanyahu, if he loses to the opposition in the elections, he will seek to impose a fait accompli through war, enabling him to lead or participate in a national unity government and secure his political survival.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.
