In the run up to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders’ meeting with US President Barack Obama at Camp David, many analysts and politicians suspected that the two sides would be divided over how to check Iran’s unremitting attempts to destabilize the region and that the summit would witness confrontation between the two sides.
The dominant feeling in the Middle East is that the United States has been slowly turning its back on the region altogether, a feeling that has fueled a lot of speculations over how American allies in the region would act independent of the American position.
And yet, statements made during and after the end of the Camp David summit indicate that the United States is unequivocally committed to “deter and confront” any future Iranian aggression in the region and that the GCC countries would not oppose a nuclear deal with Iran.
The tradeoff has allowed for cooperation between the two sides. The American assurance to stand up to Iran if the latter continues meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is important particularly after many Sunni Arab countries are suspecting that the possible American deal with Iran would be at their expense and that such a deal would allow Iran to flex its muscles.
With its continuous grandstanding and meddling in neighboring countries’ affairs, Iran has earned the name of a revisionist state. For this reason, the stability of the region needs the United States to prop up the status quo in the Gulf region. The GCC countries’ success in reaching a win-win agreement with the United Sates has to do with two factors: The unity among these countries and the clarity of their objective. From the get-go, leaders of the Gulf countries made it perfectly clear that they would not oppose an American deal with Iran over the nuclear program, but they suspect that Iran would use the flow of cash in the wake of lifting of the sanction to fund its destabilizing policies in the region.
Put differently, the GCC Arab leaders in particular feared that a West-Iran deal would leave them vulnerable. Apparently, it took the American administration a long time to figure out how to ride two horses at the same time.
It remains to be seen how the United States is going to translate its pledges into policies and actions on the ground. Perhaps, Syria can be an arena for testing the new American “ironclad” commitment. It is vital for the Gulf countries to help facilitate the political settlement of the Syrian crisis. During the last month, Assad’s troops suffered key military defeats in the north of Syria — thanks to the Saudi-Qatari-Turkish coordination. Equipped by this success in Syria, the Gulf countries convinced the American administration to realize that IS could not be defeated with Assad at the helm of Syrian politics. Thus, President Obama asked his national security team to revise his strategy on Syria. If this revision leads to a more assertive policy in Syria, then the days of Assad are counted.
During the Camp David summit, Secretary of State John Kerry told the Arab leaders that his country was convinced of the need to sponsor a process of political transition in Syria and that Russia may join the process. It is worth mentioning that the rise of IS and like-minded extremist groups is due to the continuation of the Syrian regime and the hesitance of Obama’s in handling the Syrian crisis from the start.
The Arab leaders’ success at the Camp David has to do with their determination to check Iran and to their subtle diplomacy in their approach to the current American administration. Unlike Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has chosen to lobby against a possible deal between the United States and Iran, Arab leaders instead sought the cooperation of the United States to prop up stability in the region and to push back Iran. Their determination and wise approach have eventually paid off.
