Why are Gulf Arab countries concerned about the collapse of the Iranian government?
Following the escalation of tensions between Washington and Tehran after the deadly crackdown on protesters in Iran, the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman launched intensive efforts to dissuade Donald Trump, the President of the United States, from attacking Iran, as a senior Saudi official told AFP, expressing concerns that such an action could lead to "dangerous reactions in the region."
This Saudi official stated that the three Gulf countries engaged in extensive diplomatic efforts at the last moment to convince the U.S. President to give Iran's leadership a chance to "demonstrate goodwill," and that communication channels remain open to strengthen mutual trust.
What perspective do Gulf countries have on their "unstable neighbor," and what are their concerns?
Gulf Diplomacy in a Race Against Time
The possibility of a U.S. military action against Iran has taken a central place in current strategic equations and has become a permanent concern in regional diplomatic circles, especially for members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
This concern arises from the geographical proximity to Iran, which, despite being neighbors with Gulf countries, has always fluctuated between tension and understanding, sometimes even completely severing relations.
However, the resumption of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, mediated by China in 2023, was a turning point that restructured this relationship on new foundations, including respect for the principle of non-interference in each other's internal affairs, to create a relatively more stable diplomatic environment.
In this context, some Gulf capitals have established intensive diplomatic contacts with various parties to prevent any escalation of tensions against Iran, which may include regime change.
Gulf countries have significant economic weight and substantial investments in the U.S., while maintaining balanced relations with other global powers, including China.
This tool provides unprecedented ability to manage disputes and exert pressure on various parties with the aim of preventing military escalation against Iran, and most importantly, ensures that the Gulf region remains free from any overt conflict.
Ahmed Shizawi, an Omani writer and political analyst, believes that Gulf countries have effective diplomatic tools at their disposal to pressure all parties, whether through direct communication during periods of tension or through mediation, as Oman does regarding Iran.
Mr. Shizawi emphasized in an interview with BBC Arabic that the economic weight of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries serves as a global leverage and stated, "If this tool is used correctly, it will have a significant impact on reducing tensions between Washington and Tehran."
Leila Nakoula, a professor of international relations at the University of Lebanon, also believes that the Gulf Cooperation Council countries possess important influence tools that allow them to deter the U.S. from overthrowing the Iranian government; from their economic weight and large investments in the U.S. to their good relations with Donald Trump and the Chinese channels that can play a mediating role.
Ms. Nakoula pointed out in an interview with BBC Arabic the mediating role of Qatar and Oman in obtaining guarantees and containing what she called Washington's "military eagerness," indicating that this shows Gulf capitals can manage disputes and conflicts using power and diplomacy and achieve an influential position as mediators.
Why are Gulf countries seeking to prevent escalation of tensions?
Over the past two decades, Gulf countries have sought to build their economic outlook beyond dependence on oil, focusing on diverse sectors such as real estate services, tourism, technology, healthcare, and investment. They have also sought to strengthen their position in global forums and decision-making centers by playing a mediating role in complex international issues.
However, from their perspective, these efforts remain contingent on regional stability, which any potential U.S. attack on Iran would severely affect.
Ahmed Shizawi believes that Gulf countries face a significant deadlock in light of the recent escalation of tensions between Washington and Tehran, and their diplomatic movements are an attempt to preserve their security in a region that may witness a threatening explosion against their stability.
He states, "They always resort to diplomacy to maintain their security and economic stability and to prevent their countries from becoming a battleground for foreign powers, aiming to steer the U.S. government towards a diplomatic path rather than military intervention. They maintain their alliance with the U.S. while also engaging with a large neighbor like Iran. Balancing the alliance with Washington and engagement with Tehran has always been a permanent challenge for Gulf Cooperation Council countries."
Regarding military capability, Mr. Shizawi believes that although Gulf countries possess advanced weapons, this capability is not comparable to the level of U.S. military advancement. On the other hand, these countries do not have effective deterrent capabilities if U.S. bases in their territories are targeted by Iran.
According to him, this situation places them in a difficult position: they cannot respond to Iran because they do not want to escalate tensions, nor can they prevent the U.S. from using its bases in their territory.
Leila Nakoula also warns that any unrest or internal conflict in Iran, or a feeling of threat from the Iranian regime, may push this country towards options she describes as "suicidal," including closing the Strait of Hormuz, which she believes would lead to cutting off oil exports and increasing prices.
She states, "Therefore, the continuation of the current Iranian regime, known for its pragmatic approach and avoidance of suicidal economic and military options, is in the interest of Gulf countries; provided that the rise of hardliners is prevented, as this could lead to long-term tensions and wars in the region."
Is regime change in Iran aligned with the agenda of Gulf countries?
The possibility of the current Iranian regime's collapse is met with serious doubt and concern in these countries, as there are fears that in its aftermath, rival militias may form or separatist tendencies may emerge within the country.
According to sources who spoke with BBC Arabic, such a scenario could lead to security chaos, and its consequences would not be limited to inside Iran but could spill over to the Gulf countries as well. Additionally, their other concern is that the rise of a government supported by the U.S. and Israel could lead to increased Israeli influence within Iran.
Hisham Ghannam, a Saudi researcher at the Carnegie Middle East Center, states that the current Iranian regime, despite its "problems and aggressive behaviors," has been a regime whose calculations and reactions have been somewhat understandable and predictable. He believes that Gulf countries prefer a gradual reform of this regime over its sudden collapse, as "the devil we know" is often less dangerous than a new regime that may bring chaos.
Mr. Ghannam warns that any change in the current Iranian regime may pave the way for the emergence of new hardliners from previously unknown factions and states: "The collapse of Iran will be more dangerous than the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq due to the ethnic and sectarian complexities in Iran and the extent of its affiliated militias in several Arab capitals." According to him, such a scenario could lead to ethnic conflicts, the displacement of millions, international pressures, humanitarian crises, and multiple security threats.
He also warns that Iran's allied militias in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and other countries may turn into what he calls "decentralized terrorist groups" if the central power collapses, increasing regional tensions.
Mr. Ghannam emphasizes that having a central regime in Tehran, even if only partially capable of containing "proxies," is better than total instability.
He states that although the likelihood of forming an Iranian regime aligned with the U.S. is low, if realized, it may lead to the creation of a new axis allied with Israel; an axis that would diminish the role of Gulf countries in regional equations and consequently, this "new Iran allied with Israel" would be able to use its influence to exert pressure in areas such as energy and arms.
In his view, the worst-case scenario is that the change in Iran is not peaceful and turns into a prolonged civil war involving multiple actors; a situation that would directly affect Gulf countries.
Ahmed Shizawi also believes that the collapse of the Iranian regime at this time is not in the interest of Gulf countries, as these countries are concerned about the emergence of even more hardline regimes after the collapse of the current regime. He states that any political vacuum would lead to security instability and the emergence of anti-Arab nationalist ideologies.
He also states that the collapse of the Iranian regime would lead to widespread migration to Gulf countries and also to smuggling and the influx of weapons into these countries, which, according to him, would pose serious threats to the security and stability of the region.
Ms. Nakoula also describes the collapse of the Iranian government as concerning from a security and stability perspective for the countries of the region, stating that this situation could lead to a scenario similar to Iraq or Libya, with the emergence of hostile militias or separatist demands that could extend the scope of conflict to other Gulf countries; a situation that these countries seek to avoid.
In summary, the efforts of Gulf countries to prevent military escalation on one hand and to maintain the current Iranian regime "despite all considerations and criticisms" on the other, can largely be understood within the framework of "risk management"; an approach that has characterized the diplomacy of some Gulf capitals in recent years and has distanced itself from confrontational, tense, and adventurous discourses.
Accordingly, Gulf capitals are moving towards preserving their "strategic and historical" alliance with Washington, while being well aware of the importance of their relationship with Iran "in its current form" to prevent any direct confrontation that could plunge the region into a deep crisis with countless consequences.