What an incentivised or a punished Iran means for ME

Express Tribune

24-05-2025

The writer is a non-resident research fellow in the research and analysis department of IPRI and an Assistant Professor at DHA Suffa University Karachi
Listen to article
The international system was always anarchic, but the current shift in the balance of global influence is making it more turbulent and uncertain. For good or for bad, the global geopolitical landscape is experiencing a shift, and the great responsibility of all stakeholders, including the state practitioners and policymakers, is to correctly read these changes and make sure that the choices they make enable the countries that they lead to stand on the right side of history.
Uncertainty of the international system is aptly described in how Iran, despite engaging in the fifth round of nuclear talks with the US, is not buoyed by the idea of reconciliation but is more concerned and threatened by the growing possibility of an Israeli air strike on its nuclear facilities.
No central authority, not even the US, can probably guarantee that no such military action will take place, thus making the international system so anarchic. China and Russia lead the change the world is witnessing in the global balance of influence. That change is well demonstrated in the way both these great powers view the uncertain times that Iran is experiencing.
The geopolitical positioning of Russia and China on Iran matters, and both the US and Israel would do well to correctly read their position before the game-changing decision about Iran is finally taken — integrating Iran in the global economy or taking a military action against it.
Russia is fighting a war in Ukraine, and ideally, it should be happy to see its main adversary preoccupied in the Middle East. This diversion of American attention suits Russia, and it is not merely the diversion of attention but also the diversion of American capabilities, as was evident in the aftermath of the October 7 attack by Hamas when the Biden administration provided additional batteries of Patriot Missiles to Israel, which Kyiv desperately needed.
Any war in the Middle East will drive up the prices of oil; and under Western sanctions, increased oil prices mean the generation of more revenue by the war-hit Russian economy. Russia's position on Syria is sensitive.
During his visit to Saudi Arabia, President Trump announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria — a long-time Russian satellite state. It has been acting as the Russian platform for projecting Russian power in the Eastern Mediterranean through the Russian air and naval bases there.
The Syrian president has also stated that, given the right conditions, Syria may one day consider joining the Abraham Accords. So one can easily say that the balance of influence in this strategically important country in the Middle East is shifting from the Russian to the American side.
This diminishing Russian influence in Syria also means bad news for Russia in other strategically important places. Russia's ability to export military influence and control to Libya and the Sahel, where it has an expanding presence, will also be affected. If a war erupts in the Middle East following an Israeli air strike on Iran, then geopolitically, Russia may find opportunities and the US and its allies, including Israel and the Arab states in the Persian Gulf, may only be exposed to increased risks and threats.
A war in the Middle East would be bad news for the Chinese economy. It is the economy that led China to broker the historic diplomatic normalisation between Iran and Saudi Arabia. China transports $280 billion worth of goods annually through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, which constitutes 20% of China's overall maritime trade.
The American myth that China is interested in fomenting global chaos to create American preoccupation in the troubled spots to undermine the American-led international order is based on a wrong assumption. The Chinese economy cannot afford global chaos, or more specifically, a war erupting in the Middle East. Strategically, CPEC and BRI are Chinese projects designed to avert such risks by building more diverse supply chains.
Iran is China's strategic partner, and without China's help, it would be difficult for Iran, under sanctions, to sustain its economy. China would neither want any external power to exercise dominance and control in the Indian Ocean region.
More a commercial than a war-fighting water body, China will do everything in its power to not allow the Indian Ocean to lose its globally accepted standing and status of being only a commercial water body.
Saudi Arabia, under MBS, also follows a consistent policy that states that the future of the Middle East should not be shaped by force. He is all set to safeguard his Vision 2030. MBS visions not ballistic missiles but tourists flying to and from countries in the Middle East.
The initiation of change in Saudi Arabia has its roots in how MBS took a huge political risk in sidelining his religious police and confronting the conservative backlash. He masterminded the change in the balance of influence in Saudi society by unshackling it from the age-long chains of religiosity.
There were political risks, but he took them. Today, Neom City, with over 50 luxury hotels being built along the Red Sea and the world's tallest building being built in Riyadh, is all a testimony to MBS's resolve to make Saudi Arabia part of the modern world.
If a nuclear deal between the US and Iran materialises, then after a gap of 45 years, it will open up the possibility of the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Such a scenario in itself is likely to bring huge geopolitical changes in the Middle East. Iranian proxies may no longer pursue goals that represented a defiant Iran.
Incentivised Iran will find it reasonable to withdraw support to all its proxies. Imagine the hope this gives to the innocent people residing in the Middle Eastern conflict zones. Like the 25 million people living in Yemen, a country so poor that it imports 90% of its food.
President Trump led a $1 billion bombing campaign against this country because the Houthis were executing drone attacks and firing missiles at ships, thus violating the freedom of navigation of ships in international waters. This is considered justified under international law, but criticised by those who read and understand international law, but cannot understand why the same is allowed to be violated in Gaza.
If Iran and the US strike a deal and base their future relationship on reconciliation, then the resumption of harmonious relations between the two will not be possible unless Israel fits into the equation. If peace is to be given a chance in the Middle East, then the US will have to reconsider its policy towards Israel. Surely, a US-Iran deal will only materialise after Iran can extract such a guarantee from the US.