CSM: Gulf states no longer want to isolate Iran

Anyone following my tags over the last month will know that I've been keenly interested in the developing stance of the GCC states towards Iran My analysis of what's going on appears in tomorrow's Christian Science Monitor: 

'Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos," Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Gulf dignitaries in Bahrain last month. But in reality, everywhere you turn, from Qatar to Saudi Arabia to Egypt, you now see Iranian leaders shattering longstanding taboos by meeting cordially with their Arab counterparts      

The Gulf has moved away from American arguments for isolating Iran. American policymakers need to do the same.

The states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are accommodating themselves to Iran's growing weight in the region's politics. They remain key parts of America's security architecture in the region, hosting massive US military bases and underwriting the American economy in exchange for protection. But as Saudi analyst Khalid al-Dakheel argues, they are no longer content sitting passively beneath the US security umbrella and want to avoid being a pawn in the US-Iranian struggle for power. Flush with cash, they are not interested in a war that would mess up business.       

That's why America's attempt to shore up containment against Iran increasingly seems to be yesterday's battle.

After reviewing some of the recent developments (including Ahmednejad's appearance at the GCC and at the Hajj, and other officials in Cairo), I argue:

Gulf Arabs have thus visibly discarded the central pillar of the past year of America's Middle East strategy. Saudis and Egyptians had been the prime movers in anti-Iranian and anti-Shiite agitation. When they are inviting Ahmadinejad and Mr. Larijani to their capitals, America's talk of isolating Iran sounds outdated.

One hears little today of the "Shiite crescent" threatening the region, against which Arab officials once gravely warned. The Bush administration's proposed "axis of moderation," joining Sunni Arab states and Israel against Iran, has quietly passed from view.

In the original version, I had a longer discussion of the disappearance of the hysteria over Sunni-Shia conflict last year, arguing that its disappearance of late offers some support for the argument I made at the time (and even more for Greg Gause's argument) that the hysteria was driven more by Arab regimes (especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt) and their media than by genuine popular sectarian sentiments.   Since that got cut in copyediting, I'm glad to have the chance to mention it here.

I then point to some indications of growing GCC self-confidence and assertiveness:

Meanwhile, the GCC seems more unified and confident than it has in years. Earlier this week the six member countries agreed to form a common market. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have mended fences. Pressures for domestic political reforms have been largely defanged, and the oil bonanza has allowed Saudi Arabia to pursue an energetic foreign policy. The Gulf states won't abandon their US protectors anytime soon, but they seem more willing than ever to act on their own initiative.

The emerging signs of a tentative thaw in the Gulf are not due solely to the release of the findings in last month's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran was no longer pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The NIE helped trigger the thaw by convincing Arabs that a US-led war against Iran had become much less likely. But it has long been clear that most Gulf rulers have no appetite for a war that would disrupt their economic boom and put them at the most risk. The Gulf media today speaks more of avoiding war than of fomenting it.       

On Iraq, I suggest that

fears of a Saudi-Iranian proxy war have given way to hints of an emerging modus vivendi. Gulf regimes remain hostile to the pro-Iranian Iraqi government. But instead of trying to replace its Shiite leader, Nouri al-Maliki, they now seem satisfied that the rise of the Sunni "Awakenings" – US-backed neighborhood councils that have begun fighting Al Qaeda – will check Iranian ambitions. Saudi and Iranian clients in Iraq even seem to be carving out zones of influence, as suggested by recent talks between the Sunni Anbar Salvation Council and the Shiite Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.

Cut due to space constraints (and because a bit off-topic), some comments on the (probable) role of Saudi cash and mediation in promoting those Awakenings.  More on that later. 

Finally, the upshot:

This is not to say that the Gulf states are comfortable with Iranian power. Anti-Shiite and anti-Persian sentiment exists throughout the Gulf. Iran's territorial dispute with the United Arab Emirates generates considerable passion in that country. Few Gulf or Arab leaders publicly welcome an Iranian nuclear program. And Ahmadinejad's proposal of a new Gulf security architecture including Iran was widely seen as an initiative for Iranian hegemony, not a genuine collective security arrangement.

Gulf states see Iran as a challenge that they have been dealing with for decades, not an urgent or existential threat. The shifting Arab approach may leave the US with little choice but to do the same. Just as America's containment of Iraq began to collapse in the late 1990s when its Arab neighbors lost faith in the value of sanctions, the new Gulf attitudes will probably now shape what the US can do with Iran.

Read the whole thing here at the Christian Science Monitor.  My thanks to those who talked to me about the subject - you know who you are.  This seems particularly relevant given that Bush's upcoming visit to the region is reportedly meant to focus on building support for containing Iranian influence.  (By the way, anyone have any thoughts on why he's visiting Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE... but not Qatar?)
 

Comments

[bhounshell]

Check this story out, Marc:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/world/middleeast/04jazeera.html?hp

[Drima @ The Sudanese Thinker]

"but not Qatar?"

Aljazeera?

[maddawg]

bottom line...

FUQ saudi arabia and their B.S. oppressing regime...

they should be put to the dogs as they belong. let the women, students and bloggers run the country. it's guaranteed they'll do a much better job.

any society and oppresses it's people for what the people say in public is no better than that 3rd reich.

any society that punishes a person for being raped is no better than the dogshit that steams on the ground after a nice dump.

the middle east is as retarded and doomed as it can get.

welcome to the real world you gas bags of deceit, lies and corruption now go kill yourselves and do us all a favor.

as i always say, a nuke and a desert equals one nice piece of glass.....

scum sucking pigs that don't deserve the air you breath...the world will crush your little self important ways...you're alone now....you hear the silence when you talk? that's nobody listening because shit doesn't say anything worth hearing!
(it just smells almost as bad as ur turbins and homes)

[Helena Cobban]

Actually, the Gulf states have never been on board the Bush administration's agenda re combating or even isolating Iran. I wrote this in an opinion piece for the CSM reported from the region this time last year, and have remarked on it on my Just World News blog and elsewhere for more than a year now.

Sadly, none of this actual reporting on how the people and rulers of the Arab states view these matters made much impact on the wilfully deaf discourse inside Washington DC (aka the self-referential bubble.)

Wouldn't it be nice to think decisionmakers in Washington had an interest in what the people outside the US actually think, and how the 6 billion people who are not US citizens see the world? We can live in hope...

[saeed uri]

Really I think a giant change happened with the Saudis after Annapolis and the settlement construction in E. Jerusalem. Once they noticed that the whole "peace meeting" was a huge farce, the idea of an end to the occupation anytime soon, coming out of DC, was destroyed.
They really understand how big of an issue the Palestinians are in the Arab/Islamic world, and they have probably learned about from the Persians themselves (considering who is more popular in egypt), with this we have also seen the warming of relations between hamas and some arab countries.
Well it could be because i am palestinian and all roads end in jerusalem but i seriously think annapolis has become a turning point in arab american relations.

[Calypso]

I am glad to see this happening actually. I am no genius but I spent a lot of time studying the history of the Arab's and their region since WWI over at the British National Archive site. What I learned convinced me that it was only going to be a matter of time and amount of damage until the Arab states had no choice but to move closer together, however uneasy their allience may be, to prevent any more US caused chaos and instabliity in their region.
I see this as a good thing for them and in the long run for the US. It will force us to adopt a different approach on what we think our interest are in the ME.
Even semi truces might allow them to act in concert on issues of outside meddling and if that effectively kills the Isr'merica dream of making our ward Israel the supreme economic and miliarty power in the ME constantly backed up by the US so much the better.
Balance of power actually means balance and this looks like a better balance to me.