Iranian role in the Middle East has created many problems in the region. Its foreign policy vis-à-vis Syria, Iraq and Yemen has been a source of tension between Iran and the GCC countries.
Last week, the Brookings Doha Center hosted two speakers from Iran, one from Saudi Arabia, and one from Qatar to explore the possibility of rapprochement between Tehran and other GCC countries particularly Saudi Arabia.
In other words, the speakers were supposed to discuss whether there are strategies for de-escalation and better understanding.
I was among the audience and was looking forward to hearing the speakers outline a road map for bringing about rapprochement.
The two Arab speakers were candid and made it perfectly clear that for a rapprochement with Iran to be a reality, Iran needs to change its interventionist foreign policy. While they welcomed the idea of dialogue with the Iranians in general, they were not oblivious to the fact that a dialogue for the sake of dialogue could hardly change things on the ground. The grim reality especially in Syria requires deeds not words.
On the other hand, the two Iranian speakers echoed the Iranian official line. They insisted that Iran is acting in self-defense. One speaker even alluded to the “democratic deficit” in much of the Arab word as the main reason for the tension. Ironically, he kept talking about the lack of democratic regimes in the Arab world, as if Iran is a full-fledged democracy.
But the speaker failed to defend his position when he was countered by the argument that Iran is in no position to lecture others about democracy when it strongly backs dictators and butchers such as Assad of Syria.
The other Iranian speaker tried to defend Iran’s interventionist foreign policy by focusing on Iran’s threat perception. He made the case that Israel posed the greatest threat to Iran and that the latter needed a strategic depth by propping up the Syrian regime and Hezbollah. His words fell on deaf ears.
I personally felt that I wasted my time listening to the polemics of the Iranian speakers. They Iranians wanted us to realize that Iran was a regional power and hence it had “legitimate” interests in Syria.
Obviously, Iran feels emboldened by the recent development and the nuclear deal with the six great powers. Iran’s miscalculations come from its belief that the rest of the Arabs would accept Iran’s hegemony in the region. Their perception of gradual American withdrawal from the politics of the region pushes them to believe that there will be a vacuum and that Iran is qualified to fill the void.
It is not as if Iran is not a rational state. On the contrary Iran understands the logic of cost-benefit formula. Hence, unless Iran understands that there is a high-price tag for continuing its revisionist foreign policy, it will continue its negative foreign policy. Cutting Iran down to its size is imperative for rapprochement to take place.
