Nournews: At a time when the international community is increasingly calling for an end to U.S. interventionism, and the Ramadan War has exposed the fragility of Washington's security-for-sale strategy, the United States continues to organize highly publicized security meetings in an effort to obscure both its strategic failures and the new realities emerging across West Asia, particularly in the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, some Arab states still appear to operate under the outdated assumption that their security can be purchased from Washington. In this context, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that it had hosted a regional security meeting in Bahrain attended by officials from eleven Middle Eastern countries.

According to a statement published by CENTCOM on X, the meeting, hosted by the Bahrain Defence Force, brought together Brad Cooper, the CENTCOM commander, along with senior officials from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Egypt, to discuss the latest regional security developments and opportunities for expanding defense cooperation.

These so-called security initiatives, however, stand in stark contrast to the realities unfolding across the region. Should the Arab states on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf persist in efforts to undermine the emerging regional order around the Strait of Hormuz—whether through the promotion of artificial transport corridors or participation in Washington's political initiatives—they will inevitably face substantial costs and potentially serious consequences.

Washington's Enduring Priority: Israel's Security, Not That of Arab States

The participation of Arab countries in the CENTCOM meeting comes despite Washington's repeated and explicit declaration that its foremost and non-negotiable strategic priority remains Israel. This is true even after securing billions of dollars through arms deals and benefiting from the energy resources of its Arab partners. Other regional states occupy no comparable position in America's strategic hierarchy.

Although the United States attempted to reassure its Arab partners through symbolic gestures during the Bahrain meeting, its actions on the ground continue to reflect its longstanding policy. Its support for Israel's military campaign in Gaza, its indifference toward Israeli occupation in Lebanon, and its backing of Israel's recent attacks on Syria all provide compelling evidence of this approach.

Arab governments should recognize that accommodation with Washington and reliance on its illusory security guarantees will produce nothing but deeper regional instability. The United States has repeatedly demonstrated that it possesses neither the political will nor the practical capability to ensure regional security. Instead, it continues to operate largely within the framework of Israeli strategic objectives.

The Ramadan War: A Test That Shattered the Myth of American Security

While Washington continues to generate billions of dollars through arms sales and security commitments to Arab states, one fundamental question remains unanswered: How can a country that struggles to protect its own military personnel and installations realistically guarantee the security of others?

The Ramadan War demonstrated that the region's security architecture is increasingly shaped by the balance established through the Resistance. Even American media outlets and intelligence assessments have acknowledged that a significant number of U.S. military facilities and bases were either destroyed or rendered inoperable, substantially reducing their operational effectiveness.

Despite these developments, some Arab governments appear to have repeated the same strategic miscalculation by attending the Bahrain meeting in pursuit of American approval. Bahrain, for its part, once again repeated what Iran considers baseless allegations against Tehran at the UN Security Council—an action viewed as inconsistent with the principles of peaceful coexistence and reflective of some regional actors' failure to recognize the profound transformation of West Asia's security architecture following the defeat of the aggressors in the Ramadan War.

The Strait of Hormuz: An Equation That Cannot Exist Without Iran

By convening a meeting with representatives from eleven Arab countries, Washington sought to project itself as the principal architect of regional security, particularly in the Persian Gulf. This aligns with earlier remarks by Marco Rubio, who, during a meeting with the Gulf Cooperation Council, advocated the creation of new transport corridors bypassing the Strait of Hormuz.

The geopolitical reality, however, is that the Islamic Republic of Iran remains the decisive actor in any strategic equation concerning the Strait of Hormuz, and no external power is capable of altering this fact.

Attempts to circumvent Iran's geopolitical position through political narratives, temporary coalitions, or media-driven alliances are unlikely to succeed. Neither regional nor extra-regional partnerships can change this strategic reality. On the one hand, this principle is explicitly emphasized in the fourteen-point memorandum; on the other, Iran's capabilities, determination, and repeated warnings against any effort to alter the existing balance are clear and unequivocal. The Islamic Republic of Iran has also stated that it will employ all available military and diplomatic means to counter such initiatives.

The essential point is that lasting peace in the region can only be achieved through an inclusive regional security framework free from external interference. Rather than continuing to rely on the outdated and repeatedly unsuccessful policy of seeking security through concessions to the United States, Arab states should embrace the emerging regional order and work toward building indigenous security arrangements. Such an order is founded on ending the U.S. military presence in the region and confronting Israel. As in the past, the Islamic Republic of Iran has declared its readiness to place all of its capabilities at the service of regional security, arguing that its conduct during the Ramadan War reflected a responsible commitment to the security of the region as a whole.