HITLER built his Nazi project on the idea of the purity and superiority of the Aryan race, and treated other nations according to that ideology. The Persians consider themselves part of the Aryan race, and it is no exaggeration to say that the current Iranian regime applies a similar mindset in its dealings with neighbors and the world. It is therefore unsurprising that the leaders of the Iranian regime view the Arabian Gulf, and Arabs in general, as inferior, perpetuating the racial attitudes inherited from the Nazis.
Unfortunately, this way of thinking governs the current relations between Iran and the Gulf states. A clear example is the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran treats as its private waterway, disregarding the fact that it is both an international and Gulf waterway, governed by international maritime law. Consequently, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have more right than Iran to determine the fate of the Strait of Hormuz. When Tehran announces the imposition of transit fees through this waterway, it is primarily violating the rights of the Gulf states and escalating the war, turning it into an international dispute.
In short, wars always end with settlements. Regarding negotiations, whether direct or indirect, between Washington and Tehran, the Gulf states must be the primary stakeholders, as they have suffered the most in this war and continue to face Iranian aggression. They can hence not be excluded from the negotiating table.
In this regard, we are not only talking about compensation for damages, but it also involves determining the fate of the entire region, including Iranian influence in some Arab countries, confronting the military capabilities of the Iranian regime, and dismantling the network of Iranian-backed terrorist groups. On several occasions, I have spoken extensively about the suffering the Gulf region has endured, and continues to endure, due to Iranian interference since 1979. Consequently, returning to square one after the end of this war would mean the region can never be truly secure, especially given that the Persians’ political and historical doctrine is based on a sense of superiority over their neighbors. From this perspective, there is no distinction between Iran and Israel. Therefore, to break the deadlock, both Iran and Israel must be compelled to cease their attacks, and any engagement with the Gulf states in particular, and the Arab world in general, must be based on a simultaneous shift in the political and historical doctrines of both countries.
On this basis, the Gulf states cannot accept the principle of exporting the revolution, enshrined in the Iranian constitution, which the countries and peoples of the region have long opposed and which has inflicted high costs over the past 47 years. The ongoing threats from Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon, posed by Iranian-backed terrorist groups, cannot be tolerated. Similarly, Tel Aviv must abandon its Greater Israel project to allow the region to live free from wars and anxieties caused by expansionist ambitions rooted in flawed political and historical ideologies. Thus, the Gulf states, with their economic power, are fully capable of changing the regional equation.
It is inconceivable that they should not be the primary actors in any settlement, so that this war becomes the last in the region. Iranian arrogance over the past five decades has brought widespread devastation to the region, and this cannot go unanswered at both the regional and international levels. If Iran fails to recognize that international maritime corridors in the region are governed by international law and uphold freedom of navigation, the international community must act to restrain and discipline it, while preserving the Gulf states’ rightful priority in determining the future of the region as a whole
