Ernest Hemingway, in his historical novel For Whom the Bell Tolls, offers a social and historical reflection on the human condition. People often pass through different stages of life with hope for the future, yet because their expectations are not always aligned with the realities of social structures and the logic of life, they ultimately encounter uncertainty and ambiguity.
A similar situation can be observed in the security and strategic environment of the Persian Gulf states.
Saudi Arabia, which has long played a central role in shaping the political and security behavior of many Persian Gulf countries, has consistently sought to assume the role of a "proxy actor" serving as the region's "gendarme." Riyadh believed that the polarization of relations between the Persian Gulf states and Iran, coupled with U.S. support for the Arab states, would provide Saudi Arabia and its regional allies with hierarchical security and power.
It was within the framework of this policy that whenever Donald Trump came to power, the conditions for the symbolic "sword dance" were created. Such ceremonies signified strategic solidarity between the United States and the Persian Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia, reinforcing the perception that participation in these displays enhanced their security and influence. In reality, however, U.S. strategy—particularly under Donald Trump—toward the Persian Gulf has consistently been driven by the logic of the "petrodollar."
1. The Shift Away from the Anti-Iran Coalition in U.S. and Persian Gulf Policy
Today, the enthusiasm and symbolism of the sword dance have faded across the Persian Gulf region. According to Marco Rubio, drawing upon the famous dictum attributed to British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston in the nineteenth century, Gulf states are reminded that "nations, especially great powers, have neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies; they have only permanent interests, and they shape their policies accordingly."
During the Ramadan War, Iran demonstrated what may be described as "escalating resistance" alongside its doctrine of "asymmetric defense." Although the Islamic Republic faced significant tactical and operational challenges because of military limitations, it ultimately managed to preserve key political and regional objectives, gradually restoring elements of its regional position.
According to the Iran–United States understanding, an "Iran Development and Reconstruction Support Fund" is to be established. Simultaneously, Saudi political leaders increasingly recognized that security in the Persian Gulf follows the principle of "communicating vessels": insecurity affecting one country inevitably spreads instability throughout the region. Consequently, Iran's earlier proposal for a "Non-Aggression Pact," first introduced years ago, has regained prominence in the aftermath of the recent regional crisis and the high-risk war against Iran.
2. Reconstructing Regional Order and Cooperative Security Architecture
Marco Rubio's visit to the Persian Gulf states was aimed at promoting a "new security architecture." Rubio has long been regarded as one of the most outspoken American senators advocating a hardline policy toward Iran. Following the appointments of Rubio and Pete Hegseth to Donald Trump's cabinet, anti-Iran rhetoric and policies intensified significantly.
Rubio consistently employed sharp and uncompromising language toward Iran, believing that major powers could achieve all of their objectives through power politics. Yet, according to this perspective, he lacked a nuanced understanding of the true nature of power.
The outcomes of U.S. offensive actions against Iran suggest that Rubio and Hegseth equated power primarily with coercion and military pressure. Before the conflict, they believed that the United States, together with Israel, could achieve a swift and comprehensive victory over Iran. Months before the outbreak of hostilities, they sought to undermine the social, political, and diplomatic legitimacy of Iran's governing system. Nevertheless, Iran's defensive capabilities, combined with ideological resilience and national identity, enabled it to demonstrate considerable resistance against the U.S.-Israeli campaign.
Iranian officials and analysts had long anticipated that the United States—particularly under Donald Trump—was preparing to employ military force and coercive power against Iran. The tactical and strategic coordination between Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump ultimately contributed to two intense regional conflicts targeting Iran.
3. Moving Beyond Regime Change and Internal Destabilization
The principal objective of the United States and Israel has been regime change in Iran. They pursued this objective through the mechanisms of "hybrid warfare."
Economic sanctions constituted the first stage of U.S. strategy against Iran, an approach articulated by Richard Nephew, a member of President Joe Biden's negotiating team, in his concept of The Art of Sanctions. The second stage involved an intensive media campaign and the mobilization of international media networks, including Iran International, with the expectation of fueling widespread domestic unrest that would undermine the political legitimacy of the Iranian state.
The third stage consisted of large-scale military operations relying on network-centric capabilities, infiltration, and surprise attacks to achieve political transformation.
According to this analysis, none of these measures fully achieved Washington's strategic objectives. The primary reason was Iran's adoption of a strategy of resistance and asymmetric action in response to U.S. and Israeli offensive policies. Iran's resilience ultimately influenced the evolution of U.S. regional policy toward the Persian Gulf.
The current efforts by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to coordinate regional engagement between Persian Gulf countries and Iran are presented as a continuation of the dynamics created by Iran's policy of resistance and the Persian Gulf states' gradual departure from their earlier posture of tactical alignment with U.S. confrontation.
4. Rebuilding Cooperative Security During the Transition Beyond Strategic Crisis
In his meetings with Persian Gulf foreign ministers and regional leaders, Rubio sought to introduce a new strategic framework. He emphasized that future U.S.–Iran relations would no longer be defined exclusively by confrontation. Instead, he highlighted the requirements of a transitional period leading toward a substantially different pattern of interaction.
Within this framework, collective security emerges as one of the central principles of U.S. foreign and security policy in the Persian Gulf.
Rubio's principal objective is to coordinate regional security needs through multilateral cooperation involving both Iran and the Persian Gulf states. In this context, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz assumes critical importance for the global economy.
Rather than advancing the objective of regime change, U.S. tactical actions, confronted by Iranian resistance, have instead contributed to a broader transformation of regional policy patterns. This transition may represent an important component of an emerging global strategic order.
Conclusion
Future U.S. engagement in the Persian Gulf cannot achieve lasting success without Iran's participation. Iran's geopolitical position provides it with significant influence over regional political and security dynamics.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the United States has pursued a policy of containment aimed at restricting and controlling Iran's economic and strategic capabilities. Yet the twelve-day war and the Ramadan conflict demonstrate that social, economic, cultural, and geopolitical factors continue to play decisive roles in shaping national power.
An Iranian proverb aptly captures this reality: "A sitting camel is taller than a standing donkey." In other words, a state's fundamental capabilities cannot simply be ignored or replaced.
Rubio's regional tour conveyed several messages. First, the United States remains a central actor in the global political and economic system. Second, American influence cannot be sustained without accounting for the economic resources and strategic importance of the Persian Gulf. Third, although the recent conflict weakened some of Iran's tactical capabilities, it also produced a new regional balance of power that makes cooperative security increasingly necessary.
Regional cooperation among the Persian Gulf states may therefore represent an important step toward preventing future crises.
Rubio's message also reflects the reality that, in today's networked world, no single actor can control every regional security threat. Cooperation offers more promising outcomes for both regional states and major powers.
The reported agreement between Iran and the United States to establish a Regional Security Emergency Coordination Center in Doha, Qatar, may be viewed as a constructive step toward crisis management and regional stability at a time when Iran continues to bear the consequences of war and sanctions. Overcoming these challenges will require sustained regional and international cooperation.