Once again, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states are demonstrating their commitment to maintaining regional stability and avoiding any confrontation that could plunge the region into the abyss of senseless conflicts. Once again, the Iranian regime faces a critical test. The crucial question is whether it can adhere to the commitments and guarantees outlined in the agreement of principles announced between Iran and the United States - an agreement endorsed by Gulf states - or whether it will, as always, fail to uphold its obligations.
This raises further questions - Will Tehran abandon its regional proxies and act as a responsible state? Or will it continue to rely on militias to destabilize the region? Will Iran refrain from using the Strait of Hormuz as a weapon of blackmail? Or will it continue to threaten its neighbors in the Arabian Gulf region, whose only lifeline to the world is the Strait of Hormuz? A realistic assessment of Iran’s mindset, as discussed at length in recent weeks, is essential. In short, Iran has been prone to treachery at the first opportunity and is careful to conceal its strategic intentions behind diplomatic language. I recall when Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to “drink the poison chalice” in 1988 when accepting a ceasefire during the Iran-Iraq War. He then proceeded to open the regime’s coffers to Iranian-backed militias, enabling them to commit several acts of terrorism and establish sleeper cells throughout the Arab world. In this way, Khomeini publicly accepted the end of the war, but covered his treachery with a mask of goodwill.
Therefore, the current interim agreement between the United States and Iran, and the 60-day truce, contain numerous loopholes that the Revolutionary Guard could exploit to carry out terrorist acts that would destabilize the region. This scenario is reinforced by the fact that the Iranian state today appears to be composed of multiple heads, each vying to impose its will on others. As further evidence of this, a problem quickly emerged from Tehran with its announcement that it would not hand over its highly enriched uranium. This means Iran violated the agreement before it was even officially finalized, indicating that any agreements are not likely to bear any fruit.
There is a diplomatic rule - “How can you say Yes when you mean No?” The Iranian regime has followed this approach for 47 years, enabling it to evade responsibility for the terrorist acts committed by its affiliated militias. Iran has absolved itself by claiming to support the resistance groups, while also claiming that the decisions of these groups are independent. Over the past five decades, it was confirmed that bombings, aircraft hijackings, attacks on Gulf ambassadors, and attacks on certain embassies were carried out according to directives issued from Tehran. Yes, the current agreement can be framed in many diplomatic terms, but ultimately, what matters most is the mindset used to interpret its content. What further complicates the situation is that several provisions in the agreement are worded vaguely, allowing for multiple interpretations.
Therefore, there is no guarantee that Iran’s terrorist behavior will not be repeated. In any case, the GCC states have once again demonstrated good faith. The question remains whether Iran will respond positively to this initiative and make use of this opportunity with the Gulf states, an opportunity that may not present itself again, especially after the hundreds of Iranian attacks targeting Gulf countries during the recent war. Rebuilding trust cannot be achieved through evasion.
