Nournews: At a time when numerous reports and documents have revealed the role played by certain Arab states on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf in undermining regional security and stability — within the framework of strategic miscalculations and alignment with U.S. and Israeli policies against Iran — Jassim Mohammed Al-Budaiwi, Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council, emphasized during the first Europe–GCC Geopolitics and Investment Summit in Greece the importance of dialogue and diplomacy in preserving security and stability, safeguarding maritime navigation, stabilizing global energy markets, and adopting a comprehensive approach based on respect for national sovereignty, de-escalation, and the strengthening of regional and international dialogue to achieve lasting stability.
He also described the security and stability of the Persian Gulf as a shared international interest and stressed the need to strengthen the strategic partnership between the GCC and the European Union, particularly in the areas of maritime security, cybersecurity, infrastructure protection, and combating transnational threats.
Although these statements are framed in the language of collective security and regional stability, their practical realization requires certain prerequisites and obligations. A major part of these involves efforts by the aforementioned countries to rebuild lost trust, commitments by foreign powers to refrain from interfering in regional affairs, the adoption of a unified stance against the crisis-generating behavior of the United States and Israel, and recognition of Iran’s sovereign rights over the Strait of Hormuz — a country that has consistently adopted a responsible approach and devoted all its capacities to ensuring regional and even global security, including combating piracy and U.S. acts of aggression in the energy sector.
Imported Security: A Costly and Failed Experience
A review of regional developments demonstrates that decades of reliance by some regional states on “rented security,” the hosting of Western military bases — particularly American ones — spending billions of dollars on arms purchases, and pursuing normalization with Israel have not brought lasting security to the region. On the contrary, they have contributed to disputes, security crises, wars, instability, and widespread bloodshed.
The “Israel First” strategy in U.S. foreign policy and the use of regional bases, weapons, territory, and airspace to advance Israeli expansionist projects clearly illustrate this reality. The experience of the Ramadan War also showed that the United States pursues no goal other than supporting Israel and consolidating its dominance over the region. In the end, Washington sacrificed its Arab allies to this strategy, burdening them with heavy security and economic costs as well as serious reputational and international damage. In global public opinion, these countries came to be viewed as accomplices in Trump’s ambitions and aligned with the crimes of the child-killing Zionist regime.
Iran’s Good-Neighbor Policy: An Opportunity That Was Ignored
The Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently emphasized the principle of good neighborliness and the expansion of friendly relations with regional countries. Despite the betrayal by certain GCC members during the First Persian Gulf War and their support for Saddam Hussein, Tehran has sought to pursue relations based on shared interests and constructive cooperation. Iran has always considered regional convergence among neighbors to be essential for the region’s progress and enhanced global standing.
Iran has also borne heavy human and financial costs in combating terrorism and countering American-Israeli projects. Many international analysts and observers acknowledge that had Iran not stood against (ISIS), the group’s threats would have spread not only across the region but even into Europe.
During the 12-day war and the Ramadan War, the Islamic Republic also stood against the United States and Israel. This resistance did not merely secure Iran’s national security but also guaranteed the security of the entire region. Israel openly pursues the “From the Nile to the Euphrates” project, while the United States has repeatedly emphasized its policy of dominating the region and controlling the Strait of Hormuz to pressure other countries.
Nevertheless, some Arab states on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf failed to appreciate this good-neighbor policy. The commander of CENTCOM openly referred to the participation of certain Arab countries in the war against Iran.
Israeli officials have also openly admitted that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, along with several military commanders, traveled to the UAE during the conflict.
This comes as those same countries today call for freedom of navigation, trade through the Strait of Hormuz, and shared security. Yet the actions of certain GCC members stand in clear contradiction to these claims and require transparent accountability.
Iran’s Strategic Initiative: Sustainable Security for All
Alongside preserving its authority over the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has also put forward principles and conditions during negotiations that are legitimate and enforceable under international law.
On the one hand, Iran’s management of the Strait of Hormuz — within the framework of international law — is aimed at countering the continuation of warmongering by the United States and Israel while simultaneously ensuring maritime security, something that undoubtedly serves the interests of the entire region.
On the other hand, Tehran insists on ending the war and obtaining guarantees to prevent its recurrence on all fronts. This approach reflects Iran’s concern for comprehensive regional stability and security and requires cooperation and appreciation from regional countries and all actors and institutions claiming to support regional security.
Importantly, preserving Iran’s peaceful nuclear achievements, defensive capabilities, and role in regional security — including in the Strait of Hormuz — at a time when many regional states have yet to achieve genuine military, political, and economic independence, serves as a deterrent against threats to regional security.
Clearly, those genuinely concerned with regional security and stability, collective progress, and freedom of trade and energy can, by accepting these realities, play an effective role in shaping sustainable regional relations and, consequently, a new international order.
Beyond Slogans: The Need to Accept a New Regional Order
Ultimately, it must be said that the current era marks the end of “political rhetoric therapy” and the repetitive use of terms such as security and stability, freedom of navigation, energy trade, convergence, human rights, and humanitarian law — especially at a time when the widespread crimes of the United States and Israel, from Gaza to Tehran, the blatant violation of international law, and the silence of self-proclaimed human rights advocates and international institutions have called the credibility of such claims into question.
Today, the countries of West Asia and the neighbors of the Persian Gulf are inevitably moving toward accepting a new global order — one in which the expulsion of the United States from West Asia, unified confrontation with Israel, the end of foreign interference, the cessation of warmongering and hegemonic ambitions, and the genuine restoration of international law and national sovereignty become foundational principles.
Within this framework, Iran’s initiatives — from its strategic management of the Strait of Hormuz to its multilayered deterrence against the American-Israeli axis and Tehran’s principled conditions for any negotiations — can serve as the cornerstone of this emerging approach, one that will undoubtedly bring broad benefits to all nations of the region and the world.
Nournews