In the Doha meeting last week (Aug. 3), GCC foreign ministers and US Secretary of State John Kerry discussed candidly and in detail repercussions of the Iran nuclear deal. In addition to risks associated with the nuclear program, peaceful or not, they discussed other serious and more immediate risks, in particular Iran’s support for terrorism and meddling in the internal affairs of its neighbors.

The GCC and US expressed concern about recent statements by senior Iranian officials indicating Iran’s intention to continue its regional policies. Recent terrorist attacks in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia by groups linked to Iran have dashed hopes that the P5+1 deal with Iran could modify its regional behavior.

Within days of signing the deal in Vienna on July 14, Supreme Leader Ali Khameni declared it was business as usual regarding Iran’s “180 degree opposition” to the US and pursuit of old policies in the region, mentioning in particular Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Hezbollah.

When Foreign Minister Javad Zarif visited some regional capitals, he reassured his audiences of Iran’s peaceful intention by referring to “shared interests and common challenges and threats” they faced, such as terrorism, and the need to face them jointly. But he added, during a press conference in Kuwait on July 26: “What the region needs is not a change in Iran’s foreign policy, but changing others’ policies toward Iran.”

The supreme leader appeared to signal other Iranian officials to continue policies to expand Iran’s influence in the region, by any means. Where Revolutionary Guards could not operate freely, irregular militias modeled after the Basij paramilitary in Iran were set up. Basij was an effective innovation introduced by the first supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Outside Iran, Basij takes the form of hardcore sectarian militias recruited from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and some GCC countries to fight in conflict areas. They are not much different from the terrorist groups Daesh or Al-Qaeda in sectarian zeal and bloody methods.

One of the key problems in dealing with Iran is the multiplicity of actors and authorities. There is obviously the formal government of President Hassan Rouhani and his ministers, but there are other important centers of gravity under the direct authority of the supreme leader, which do not necessarily take their instructions from the formal government, in addition to various religious authorities. Those parallel authorities have by and large declared their opposition to the nuclear deal and in particular to any rapprochement with the West or neighboring countries.

Investigations by Bahraini authorities have revealed recently that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and others are still engaged in destabilizing the region. Interrogations have also uncovered its involvement in arms and explosives’ smuggling to neighboring countries, terrorist training, target selection, and timing of terrorist actions.

On July 27, two policemen were killed and five injured in Bahrain in an explosion where the same type of explosives intercepted from Iran were used. On July 28, a policeman was shot dead in Qatif, Saudi Arabia. In both cases, clear links to Iran indicated that the same methods were used as before the nuclear deal was signed.

It is for those reasons that the GCC and US protested last Monday Iran’s continued support for terrorism and other destabilizing activities. They did not share optimists’ expectations that the nuclear deal would necessarily change Iran’s policies and called on it to opt for the requirements of good neighborliness, non-interference and respect for the political independence and territorial integrity of its neighbors.

The US and GCC did not base their positions on the nuclear deal itself on any expectations that Iran would change. Instead, they vowed to face its destabilizing policies together, “using all the means at our collective disposal, including the potential use of military force.”

Iran’s conventional military threat is only one challenge facing the region, but asymmetric threats are more likely. Most worrying is its war through proxies, such as Hezbollah and similar groups, as has been the pattern throughout the region.

The GCC has frequently called on Iran to adopt a regional policy based on dialogue, reconciliation and resolving outstanding issues through peaceful means, building on the common cultural, religious and historical ties between the two shores of the Gulf.

Serious attempts were made to achieve those goals, but to no avail. Matters got worse after the start of “Arab Spring” in 2011, as Iran saw in it renewed opportunities to expand its influence and export revolution through stoking sectarian differences.

The GCC call remains and if Iran chooses peace and reconciliation instead of conflict and confrontation, it will find willing and interested partners, but the burden is on Iran to cease and desist from its support for terrorism to prove its good intentions.