The regional implications of escalating Iran-Israel tensions

Arab News

9 hours ago

https://arab.news/zded7
The new Israeli military strikes on Iranian targets did not catch many by surprise. Israel has been uncompromising in its enforcement of a zero uranium enrichment and even zero nuclear policy for Iran — an objective that lies at the core of its national security doctrine. Despite several rounds of US-Iran negotiations, including last month's fifth round that ended without progress, Iran has not conceded on this critical point. US President Donald Trump stated that he told Iran it should reach a deal within 60 days. Now, more than 60 days have passed without an agreement, largely due to Tehran's unwillingness to abandon its nuclear program, or at least scale back enrichment and accept stricter oversight.
While Israel's actions were expected given its stated red lines, what has raised eyebrows is the apparent contradiction in the American position. The US administration has officially declared that it does not support further military escalation in the region. However, it is now clear that Washington was fully briefed in advance of the Israeli strike and the Israeli leadership was able to secure a green light and clear commitment of US support. This contradiction has prompted questions about whether America tacitly approved the operation, or even encouraged it, and participated in the deception plan that misled the Iranian calculation, despite public claims to the contrary.
Iran has long boasted of its military strength and ability to deter threats and retaliate against them. The second key question, therefore, is how far is Iran prepared to go in escalating the confrontation and does it have the capability to sustain a high-intensity conflict? While Israel can continue targeting Iranian assets, doing so at scale requires American support in intelligence-sharing, resupply of munitions and diplomatic backing.
Iran still has tools at its disposal. One of the more dangerous would be a return to asymmetric warfare and covert operations
Dr. Abdulaziz Sager
Iran still has tools at its disposal. One of the more dangerous would be a return to asymmetric warfare and covert operations, similar to tactics used in the 1980s, when Iranian-linked groups targeted US and Israeli interests across the region. This scenario is not hypothetical — it is one of the reasons Israel has temporarily closed embassies considered to be at risk of reprisal.
There have been discussions about whether Russia could play a mediating role by taking custody of enriched uranium as a confidence-building measure. While Iran may see this as a way to retain its leverage, neither the US nor Israel is likely to support any arrangement that allows Tehran to preserve control over its sizable stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which it accumulated illegally over the past few years.
The Arab Gulf states find themselves in a highly precarious position. Geographically and economically linked to Iran, they are deeply vulnerable to the fallout of escalating tensions. Their top priority is to avoid being dragged into the conflict, either as a battleground or as an indirect target of retaliation. A regional war would pose severe risks to the security of their territories and populations, critical infrastructure and economic prosperity.
Thus, beyond the fundamental issue of security, there are also deep implications for economic prosperity and development. Gulf economies are fundamentally tied to stability, open trade routes and investor confidence, and any disruption, whether from attacks or threats to energy infrastructure, could have immense repercussions.
The Gulf states have consistently upheld a policy of neutrality and noninterference, seeking to balance relations with Iran, Israel and the US. They have condemned Iran's involvement in Arab affairs and its ambitions of regional dominance, while also rejecting Israel's use of force and its disregard for international norms. Similarly, they oppose US policies that violate international law, particularly those that appear to enable further escalation. The Gulf's diplomatic stance is rooted in a principled call for respect for sovereignty, nonaggression and adherence to international law and human rights.
With the conflict now transitioning into a broader military confrontation, the balance of power becomes the determining factor. In this respect, the Israeli-American alliance holds overwhelming superiority in terms of firepower, intelligence capabilities and strategic depth. Iran, under increasing pressure both domestically and externally, is showing signs of fatigue and attrition. This raises a third critical question: Will Iran's leadership come to terms with the realities of its disadvantage and move toward de-escalation? Or will it continue down a path that could lead to further destruction, isolation and internal collapse?
In the coming weeks, the answer to the questions posed above will not only shape the future of Iran, they will also define the contours of regional stability. For the Gulf states, the imperative remains: stay out of the crossfire, safeguard national security and uphold the norms of international legitimacy that offer the only sustainable path out of this crisis.
• Dr. Abdulaziz Sager is chairman of the Gulf Research Center.