Follow us on social

2021-11-24t145958z_246010250_rc221r9q42ti_rtrmadp_3_emirates-iran

Are Gulf states starting to embrace Iran?

Whether or not the nuclear deal is revived, Washington too will need to rethink its standard policy of isolating Iran.

Analysis | Middle East

In his Washington Post op-ed prior to his trip to Israel and Saudi Arabia, Joe Biden argued that he has brought the United States back in from the cold, and has returned Iran back to its isolated status.

The Biden administration remains intransigent in its preference for isolating Tehran, which has been the predominant U.S. strategy since the 1980s. In the four decades since, subsequent U.S. administrations have gone from “dual containment” to containing the “axis of evil” in the post-9/11 era, with little change in how Iran is perceived and approached. While the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign has been harshly criticized by many as being ineffective or even counterproductive, it didn’t differ significantly from previous decades’ U.S. policy in anything other than tone and intensity.

Similarly, Biden’s policy on Iran and the broader region is following the same footsteps. Just as Trump’s summit in Warsaw on peace and security in the Middle East in February 2019 succeeded in provoking escalation by Iran as a response to its isolation, Biden’s proposed security initiatives between Israel and Arab states are destined to increase tensions and very possibly lead to an outright military conflict in the region.

The sense of exclusion may eliminate the emerging interests in Iran for regional de-escalation and economic cooperation, and ultimately push Tehran further towards the types of policies that are opposed by other regional actors. Washington’s strategy will continue to push Iran to ensure its resistance to external pressure, maximize its economic and military capacities, and focus its energy on building relations with those states that have no interest in participating in the pressure campaign.

There is an enormous opportunity involved in reversing this futile strategy of exclusion. This is evidently something that many regional states have already started to take a note of, as seen in their efforts to engage Iran diplomatically following the tumultuous period the region went through in 2019 and 2020 — primarily as a result of and despite the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign.

The recent developments in the geopolitics of the broader Middle East make it evident that the overarching root cause to the tensions is actually the malaise that has been disrupting regional diplomacy: exclusionism. It is evident that countries in the region are starting to recognize this and that the current path of fluctuating yet recurring tensions is not sustainable.

For example, the accelerating pace of reciprocal visits between the UAE and Iran and the potential return of their respective ambassadors signal Abu Dhabi’s recognition of the necessity of diplomatic engagement with Tehran. While there is a push for normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, Riyadh has itself been diplomatically engaging Tehran as well. These modifications of perspective among U.S. partners should create sufficient space for policymakers in Washington to reconsider their views as well, specifically their assumptions about the inevitability of conflicts and crises in the region.

The JCPOA remains the most logical starting point for untangling Iran’s contentious international and regional relationships and building a framework for de-escalation in other regional domains. The agreement has essentially become a test case for any potential U.S.-Iran rapprochement, but the evolving dynamics in the negotiations also point to other observations. Despite some initial hesitations towards the JCPOA, all GCC states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have now shown interest in reviving the agreement — both to limit the Iranian nuclear program and to increase their economic engagement with Tehran.

The GCC states have recognized the importance of cooling U.S.-Iran tensions in the region, and the potential political, military and economic gains that could be derived from easing U.S. sanctions against Iran. The GCC states expressed their unified support for reviving the JCPOA, and back in November, they showed the desire for more economic engagements with Iran once the sanctions are lifted. In one meeting, the GCC states declared that “enhanced regional dialogue and a return to mutual compliance with the JCPOA would […] allow for more regional partnerships and economic exchange.” This new mood music coming from the region is not insignificant and should be factored into U.S. policy towards the region.

In the Washington Post piece, Biden recognized the benefits of “a more secure and integrated Middle East,” how its “waterways are essential to global trade and the supply chains” and “its energy resources are vital for mitigating the impact on global supplies of Russia’s war in Ukraine.” He also acknowledged that the region is “coming together through diplomacy and cooperation — rather than coming apart through conflict.” But these words seemed not to apply to a region that includes Iran. Biden continues the exclusionary approach and its multilayered, decades-long sanctions and containment policy that has been the main hurdle in expanding inclusive regional cooperation.

If the JCPOA is not restored, U.S. secondary sanctions on Iran will remain and tighten, and Washington will once again implement the maximum pressure campaign on Tehran. This will not only constrain any talks of regional diplomacy, but will also significantly and negatively impact the ongoing development of diplomatic and economic ties in the region. U.S. officials been recently suggesting in private meetings with GCC and European counterparts that if the JCPOA is not restored, it expects all GCC countries, including Oman, Qatar, and the UAE, to join the campaign against Iran.

If the nuclear agreement is not revived, Washington seems intent on escalating tensions through regional partnerships and alliances designed to isolate Tehran. This is dangerous, but it also does not have serious backing from the immediate region either. None of the GCC states prefer a military conflict with Iran. The region already witnessed and suffered the damage that could be inflicted from the military tit-for-tat in 2019 — from the drone and missile attacks against Saudi Arabia’s oil instillations in Khurais and Abqaiq to the mine and drone attacks off the coast of UAE’s Fujairah. The ongoing diplomatic engagements with Tehran illustrate their desire to prevent the region from sliding back into that situation. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have clearly stated their desire for more cooperation with Iran and resolving their differences with Tehran through diplomatic means.

While Biden is still keen on reviving the JCPOA — viewing it as the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — his administration’s Middle East policies are following the same approach as his predecessor and those before him. Even though Barack Obama favored diplomacy with Tehran and even suggested that Saudi Arabia and Iran should “share the region,” his administration's strategy nevertheless lacked a clear vision of how to move forward with broader regional diplomacy that would involve Iran.

With or without the JCPOA, the United States needs to allow the region to exhaust all diplomatic avenues to expand cooperation and integration. This will serve long-term U.S. and global interests in the stability and security of the Persian Gulf region and beyond.


Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri Kani poses for a photo with diplomatic adviser to the UAE's President, Anwar Gargash, and Emirati Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Khalifa Shaheen Almarar during a visit to the country, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates November 24, 2021. Wam News Agency /Handout via REUTERS
Analysis | Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.