SINCE the regime change in 1979, Iran’s relations with its neighbors have been tense, especially after enshrining the principle of “exporting the revolution” in its constitution. It is well known that when a country undergoes a regime change, the new leadership typically focuses on domestic reconstruction and easing tensions with neighboring states. However, the Tehran regime did not follow this rule, which raised concerns among its neighbors. It began establishing versions of “Hezbollah” in several countries, based on political objectives and a sectarian combat doctrine.
The Iranian regime went further, applying pressure on neighboring countries through subversive and terrorist acts. Iran was expected to take advantage of the end of the eightyear war with Iraq as an opportunity to reconsider its overall regional political attitude, given that the region represents its natural strategic depth and an important industrial and commercial market. Instead, Iran chose to escalate tensions. For example, after the fall of the Ba’ath regime in Baghdad, Iran forcefully entered the Iraqi arena through sectarian militias, raising the slogan - “Our strategic borders extend to the Mediterranean Sea.” Iran continued its provocative strategy, boasting of influence over four Arab capitals. Iran also supported the Houthis, and supplied them with missiles used to bomb Saudi Arabia and attack other Gulf states.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have repeatedly sought to establish good neighborly relations with Iran. However, each attempt was met with a wall of Iranian arrogance and ultimately failed. Despite this, the GCC’s patience did not run out, driven by the belief that any regional tension undermines stability and carries severe negative consequences.
Moreover, since 1998, Iran has heightened its neighbors’ suspicions by reviving its nuclear program. Although Iran claims its program is for peaceful purposes, its enrichment of uranium to high levels suggests an indirect pursuit of a nuclear bomb. This behavior has drawn international condemnation and led to crippling sanctions that have severely impacted Iran’s people and economy. On the other hand, Israel, despite being widely regarded as the “mother of all evils”, has possessed a military nuclear program since 1965 and maintains an ambiguous stance regarding its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Nevertheless, Israel has succeeded in establishing positive relations with countries around the world, including major powers. Despite its limited size and resources, Israel has built a massive economy. In 2023, Israel’s GDP reached approximately $513 billion, while Iran, despite its vast natural wealth, large geographic area, and significant human potential, had a GDP of only about $191 billion.
This comparison between Israel and Iran highlights the profound divergence in the visions of the two regimes. While Israel strives to strengthen its relations with the world and reassure its neighbors, Iran focuses on militarizing the state. As a result, Iran has spent billions on armaments and forming sectarian militias, even as its people live in severe poverty.
The ongoing war has exposed the true balance of power and revealed Tehran’s vulnerabilities. None of Iran’s neighbors wishes to see it remain trapped in such dire economic and developmental conditions. The only way out of this impasse is through the language of reason, as recently demonstrated between Pakistan and India. Both countries possess nuclear weapons, meaning that any escalation between them could lead to catastrophic consequences engulfing all of South Asia.
Today, there are serious calls and efforts to defuse tensions between Iran and Israel. If Tehran does not intend to build a nuclear bomb, it must reassure its neighbors and the international community. Likewise, if Tel Aviv does not seek to change the regime in Iran, it must also reassure the world and be willing to compromise. Otherwise, the path forward risks more violence, destruction, and potentially nuclear attacks and mass genocide.
