Afrasianet - Wael Hajjar - Despite conflicting indications about the reality of the U.S. decision to launch a military strike on Iran, the positions expressed by the countries of the region from South Asia to Central Asia, passing through the Persian Gulf, have revealed a different policy landscape than those sought by circles in the United States, Israel, and their allies.
This scene led to the crystallization of a coordinated action, the most prominent of which was opposing a military strike on Iran, but it is intertwined with hot files from Sudan to Yemen, Somalia, Palestine and Syria.
If it is too early to talk about an Arab-Islamic bloc that seeks to play an effective role in the region, and not to leave it to a reckless alliance between the Donald Trump administration and the Likud-Religious Zionist coalition in Israel, there are indications that a serious movement has emerged that seeks to influence the American decision first, and to immunize the region from adventures that may push the region to This may be the title of the scene that has so far led to US President Donald Trump's decision to postpone the military attack on Iran.But Trump, who explained the background to his decision on Friday, was careful to deny reports that Arab leaders — and Israelis — had persuaded him not to launch a military strike on Iran in response to the country's killing of anti-regime protesters, justifying that Iran had already canceled the hangings of 800 citizens.
According to a US official, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also asked Trump to postpone any potential strike to allow time for Israel to strengthen its defense capabilities.
In parallel, Qatar and Oman are pushing for a diplomatic solution based on dialogue between Tehran and Washington.
The New York Times quoted a Gulf official as saying that four Arab countries have conducted intensive diplomatic moves with the United States and Iran over the past week, in an attempt to prevent a threatening U.S. attack against Iran, a move they feared would have repercussions that extend across the region.
The Wall Street Journal quoted Saudi officials as saying that Riyadh has told Tehran that it will remain neutral in any potential conflict and will not allow the United States to use its airspace to carry out strikes, in an effort to avoid being drawn into a confrontation led by Washington.
This has not been a support for the Iranian regime, which has been accused of destabilizing Arab countries over the past years, but more than a deep concern about the repercussions of a war that could open up possibilities that are more dangerous than the current reality.
At the same time, such scenarios worry Gulf Arab capitals and do not serve U.S. interests well.The Economist argues that any U.S. military action could destabilize the Middle East and harm the Gulf's oil- and investment-dependent Gulf economies.
They face a civil war in neighboring Yemen, another in Sudan, and the last thing they want is the collapse of the state in Iran, a country of 92 million people just 200 kilometers across water.
Refugees are a concern, as are weapons, and a fragmented Iran could lose control of its arsenal of missiles and drones, not to mention thousands of kilograms of uranium whose fate remains unknown after the war.
Turkey
There are also concerns in Turkey. It is true that Ankara has always maintained open channels with Tehran, but during the last decade, the areas of engagement have been controlled by rules that Turkish diplomacy is keen to adopt in all its approaches, i.e., the combination of deterrence, force, and dialogue-diplomacy.
This is precisely what it has applied in Syria despite the conflict of interests, and it has stood in contrast to the Iranian position in the recent Karabakh war, supporting its ally Azerbaijan, and striking Iranian security networks on Turkish territory from time to time.
At the same time, Turkey has maintained close ties with Iran and reached settlements with it, but today it is firmly opposed to any particularly American-Israeli adventurism against Iran.
The country has a border of more than 530 kilometers with Iran. Iran is one of the gateways for the flow of refugees to Turkey, and any destabilization there may prompt additional waves of refugees, while refugee issues are the main concern in Turkey's domestic politics.
In addition, Turkey views with great apprehension the Israeli policies that are igniting fires in more than one country, especially in Syria, through its local allies, whether by supporting the Druze separatist movement in southern Syria or supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which Ankara considers the Syrian front of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is classified as a terrorist party in Turkey.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan publicly expressed Turkey's position this week by asserting that Ankara opposes any military operation against Iran, and that Iran's internal issues should be resolved by the Iranians themselves, while any external strikes would increase regional instability.
Spokesmen for Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), including Ömer Çelik, echoed the same stance, warning that any outside intervention could exacerbate instability in Iran and the wider region.Devlet Bahçeli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), a coalition partner in the government, goes further by warning that "Iran's instability is a matter of life and death for Turkey."
According to the newspaper, Ankara has already reached out to the Iranians and Americans in an effort to reduce tensions.Mustafa Janir, a researcher at the Political, Economic and Social Research Institute (SITA), which is close to Turkey's decision-making circles, believes in an article published by the same newspaper that no one in the region except Israel wants to see Iran collapse, and that what the region needs today is stability and security.
The researcher touches on the conflict files in the region and the position of both Israel and Iran on it, pointing to the threat posed by Israel, which has "become the most important source of regional instability."
Israel related to the Red Sea. He believes that Iran intersects with Turkey and Saudi Arabia in positions related to Sudan and "Somaliland."
Pakistan
Pakistan's position converges with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Islamabad has expressed grave concern over Trump's recent warnings about possible action against Iran, and its UN Security Council delegate called on all parties to "exercise restraint and act responsibly" and resolve Iran-related differences through peaceful dialogue.
Zahid Hussain in Pakistan's Dawn newspaper said that the situation in Iran poses a very difficult challenge for Pakistan, which has a border with Iran for nearly 900 kilometers. He said that any US military intervention aimed at regime change in Iran would have direct repercussions for Pakistan.
Any military escalation led by Trump would destabilize the entire region, posing a serious challenge to Pakistan's national security.
Pakistan Today, which is close to the government in Islamabad, believes that Pakistan feels safer on its western border with Iran under the current arrangements, "because of the emergence of an Iranian nationalist state with potentially close ties with the United States and Israel It could weaken Pakistan's geopolitical relevance.Pakistani-Canadian freelance journalist Ali Mustafa puts the recent visit of Pakistani army chief Asim Munir to Riyadh in the context of growing concern in Saudi Arabia, China and Pakistan about the escalating US rhetoric against Iran.
He points to contacts the Saudis are having with the Iranian-backed Houthi group in Yemen.Mustafa warns that Islamabad has been pushed to draw a clear red line, amid genuine fears that the repercussions of any US/Israeli attack on Iran will spill over into Pakistan He puts this apart from what he describes as Field Marshal Asim Munir's personal ambitions, "both with the UAE and even on the issue of the international stabilization force in Gaza that Trump is proposing," because it goes beyond that with Pakistan's ruling establishment, which has been forced to choose which side to stand.
Defense Agreement
Pakistan's Minister of Defense Production Reza Hayat Haraj announced this week from Istanbul that "Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have prepared a draft defense agreement after nearly a year of negotiations."
"The trilateral agreement between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey is already on the agenda. We have the draft agreement, and it's also in Saudi Arabia and it's available in Turkey, and all three countries are deliberating on it. This agreement has been on the table for ten months," he said.
He explained that this pact is separate from a previous bilateral agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan met this proposal by noting that discussions have already taken place, but clarified that "no agreement has been signed yet."
"Ultimately, we have a proposal that all the countries of the region come together to create a platform for cooperation in the field of security."
In parallel with the trilateral initiative, Saudi Arabia is also working to complete a second military alliance, this time with Egypt and Somalia, according to recently published reports.
This movement towards joint defense understandings between these countries may not necessarily be related to what is happening in Iran, but it is part of a coordinated movement between prominent Arab and Islamic countries to fortify the region from policies that have become an ideal recipe for destabilization, which is what Israel, which after the Gaza war aspires to redraw the scene around it by weakening and fragmenting existing entities, is openly seeking to redraw the scene around it by weakening and fragmenting existing entities.
