The dangerously escalating developments in the region leave the countries concerned with two choices: either act in self-defense or use the political and diplomatic leverage they possess to stop the war and return all parties to the negotiating table.
اضافة اعلان
Simply absorbing attacks while responding with statements of condemnation is no longer enough.
Iran has effectively shifted from targeting U.S. forces in the region to attacking civilian infrastructure.
The strikes on power and water facilities in Kuwait are one example. More recently and most concerning for Jordan was the attempted targeting of vital facilities in Aqaba two days ago.
The two main parties to the conflict Washington and Tehran are acting opportunistically toward the countries caught in the middle.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps carefully selects targets in countries whose attacks are unlikely to disrupt the global economy or energy markets, and whose governments are unlikely to respond militarily in kind.
Otherwise, how can one explain the launch of ballistic missiles toward the city of Aqaba, where there are no military activities, while the Israeli port of Eilat lies just across the border?
Israel remains largely off limits in Iran's calculations because Tehran understands the consequences of directly attacking it and how far Israel already eager for confrontation could escalate the conflict in response.
The United States is no less opportunistic than Tehran. Washington knows that the affected countries are unlikely to break the established rules of engagement with Iran or seek to expand the war against U.S. wishes.
In fact, these countries opposed the conflict from the outset and continue to call for its end because they stand to suffer the greatest consequences.
The United States has shown little regard for the interests of these countries, whether by deciding to go to war alongside Israel despite repeated regional warnings, or by signing a memorandum of understanding with Tehran without adequately considering the interests of Arab and Gulf states.
The Trump administration went even further, in a moment of impulsiveness, President Donald Trump decided to close the Strait of Hormuz and impose a 20% fee on ships passing through it, before realizing that the greatest harm would fall on America's own Gulf allies that export oil through the waterway.
He later reversed what the author describes as an irrational decision.
The countries of the region cannot remain hostage to Trump's unpredictability or to Iran's expansionist and aggressive agenda.
The confrontation between Washington and Tehran has become more costly for our countries than for the two adversaries themselves.
Arab states should stop responding to a war being fought on their soil and at the expense of their interests and future with only restrained diplomatic statements.
The time has come for these countries to meet and present a unified set of demands.
They could, for example, announce the suspension of all forms of cooperation with both warring parties unless they commit to the memorandum of understanding and return to negotiations as the path toward resolving the outstanding issues.
Iran and the United States both need the countries of the region especially the Gulf states and neither can afford to disregard the web of regional interests that binds them together. Rather than relying on bilateral negotiations that repeatedly fail, the region should pursue a comprehensive regional agreement, with U.S.
participation to help guarantee its long-term security while respecting the sovereignty of all participating states.
The United States has been unable to adequately protect its forces in the Middle East, and in the midst of that failure, it is placing the interests of its allies at risk.
This dangerous course must end before the Arab world and the Gulf are transformed into a theater of chaos and devastating war.
