The recent de-escalation between Iran and Israel has been met with relief across the Arab world, but beneath the surface lies a growing sense of unease. While capitals from Riyadh to Amman publicly welcomed the cessation of direct military conflict, a complex calculus is underway as regional actors grapple with the implications of a newly assertive Israel and a shifting geopolitical landscape. The flare-up, and the response to it, has exposed deep-seated anxieties about regional security and the role of external powers, particularly the United States, in maintaining—or disrupting—the delicate balance of power.
The initial reaction to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), likewise known as the Iran nuclear deal, was far from uniform across the Arab Gulf. While the Obama administration framed the agreement as a means of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, many Gulf states viewed it with skepticism, if not outright hostility. The perception was that the deal, by lifting sanctions, would embolden Iran and allow it to further its regional ambitions. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, in particular, saw Iran’s support for Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria – a conflict that has fueled one of the most devastating humanitarian crises in modern history – and its influence in Iraq and Lebanon as destabilizing forces. As Reuters reported in 2015, Saudi Arabia openly called the JCPOA a “flawed agreement.”
A Shift in Sentiment: From Applause to Opposition
The withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA in 2018 under President Donald Trump was largely welcomed by those same Gulf states. Egypt and Jordan, while expressing more muted concerns about Tehran’s regional agenda, also shared a sense of relief at the unraveling of the agreement. However, the recent escalation – and the near-miss of a wider regional war – has prompted a significant shift in perspective. Despite their long-standing concerns about Iran, these same states found themselves actively working to de-escalate the conflict, and now appear to support renewed diplomatic engagement.
This apparent U-turn isn’t indicative of a newfound trust in the Iranian regime. Cynicism towards Tehran remains deeply entrenched throughout the Gulf. Many would likely welcome a change in leadership in Iran, one that prioritized pragmatism over the revolutionary ideology espoused by Ayatollah Khomeini. However, that cynicism has been tempered by a growing recognition that a full-scale war with Iran would be catastrophic for the region, and that such a conflict would likely be instigated by a belligerent Israel and a willing United States. As Middle East Eye reported, Gulf states now appear to be looking for ways to capitalize on the perceived losses of both Iran, and Israel.
The Shadow of Gaza and Israel’s Expanding Military Footprint
The overwhelming response from Arab capitals to Israel’s recent strikes has been one of fierce opposition, and to the U.S. Bombing on June 22. This opposition isn’t occurring in a vacuum. For the past 20 months, Israel has been conducting a devastating military campaign in Gaza following the October 7th Hamas attack, a conflict that has resulted in over 55,000 Palestinian deaths, according to the Associated Press. This campaign has led to a genocide case brought before the International Court of Justice.
Beyond Gaza, Israel has also been expanding its military presence in the region, including in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and through repeated strikes in Lebanon, including recent attacks that Al Jazeera reported killed three individuals within the past week. This broader pattern of escalating Israeli military action has fueled concerns among Arab states, even those who are critical of Iran, about an increasingly unrestrained Israel. A regional order where Israel operates with impunity, dictating security norms to its neighbors, is viewed as unacceptable by many, including traditionally pro-Western governments like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
A Crisis of Trust in the “Rules-Based Order”
Underlying the opposition to Israel’s actions is a deeper, more fundamental issue: a growing disillusionment with the West’s selective application of international norms. Arab societies have long criticized what they perceive as double standards, pointing to the 2003 Iraq War, Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, and more recently, the U.S. Denunciation of the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders and the sanctioning of ICC judges as evidence of a system that shields Israel from accountability.
The U.S. Bombing of Iran – utilizing the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the heaviest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal – has further exacerbated these concerns. Despite legitimate concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities, there was no imminent threat, no authorization from the UN Security Council, and no broad international consensus supporting the strike. This action, many argue, sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the credibility of the “rules-based order.”
The immediate conflict between Iran and Israel may be over, for now. The long-term impact on Iran’s nuclear program remains to be seen, and will continue to be assessed by analysts and intelligence agencies. But the recent events may have signaled the end of something more profound: a period of relative stability based on a shared, if often contested, set of international norms. A new era is emerging, one increasingly defined by a presumption that might makes right, and the consequences of this shift are likely to be far-reaching and unpredictable.
The next key development to watch will be the response of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the situation on the ground in Iran. Reuters reported on June 29 that the IAEA chief has stated Iran could be enriching uranium within months. Their assessment will be crucial in determining the future trajectory of the region.
What are your thoughts on the evolving dynamics in the Middle East? Share your perspectives in the comments below.
Worth a look
