Developments in the Middle East are rapid as following the military defeat of the USA in Iran, an initiative appears to be taking shape which, if it proceeds, could fundamentally change the way security is organized in the region.
According to information cited by diplomatic sources, Saudi Arabia is considering an ambitious plan for the signing of a non-aggression pact between the countries of the Middle East and Iran.
This is an idea that transcends classic diplomatic de-escalation moves and aspires to create a new framework for regional coexistence after a period of intense instability.
The proposal acquires particular significance as it appears at a juncture where the region attempts to redefine its balances following the American-Israeli conflict with Iran and the broader consequences it caused to the entire regional security system.
The Helsinki model returns to the Middle East
The most impressive element of the leaks concerns the historical pattern upon which Saudi thinking seems to be based.
Diplomatic sources state that Riyadh is considering the Helsinki process of the 1970s as a model.
The reference is considered anything but accidental.
The Helsinki Accords of 1975 were one of the most critical political initiatives of the Cold War.
It was signed between the United States, European countries, the Soviet Union and its allies, with the aim of creating security mechanisms and economic cooperation between competing blocs.
Its logic was simple but deeply strategic: even rival powers can create rules of coexistence when the cost of conflict becomes excessively high.
The restoration of this model to the Middle East shows that several capitals now realize that traditional balances have exhausted their limits.
They are terrified of Iran
According to Western diplomatic sources, several states of the Persian Gulf express increasing concern about the next day.
The prevailing assessment is that Iran after the conflict may not appear weakened but different: more cautious, more militarized and possibly more aggressive in its strategic behavior.
The term used behind the scenes by some analysts is characteristic: wounded but more aggressive.
Concerns are intensifying as a new strategic environment is simultaneously taking shape.
The gradual reduction of the large American military presence in the region creates security gaps and pushes regional powers to seek new balancing mechanisms.
For decades, many Gulf countries relied almost exclusively on the American military umbrella.
The old position of Tehran returns to the forefront
One of the most interesting elements is that the proposed agreement touches upon a position that Tehran has been projecting for years.
Iran has long argued that the Middle East must resolve its issues without external interventions.
The core Iranian position is that regional countries can create their own security mechanisms without the direct involvement of external powers.
For years this view was treated with distrust by several Arab capitals.
Today, however, the image seems to be shifting.
The reality of the region, the continuous wars, the changing alliances and the fatigue from prolonged conflicts lead several players to a re-examination of old data.
The big obstacle called Israel
Despite the momentum of the proposal, the difficulties are enormous.
Diplomatic sources recognize that the inclusion of both Iran and Israel in a common security system seems almost impossible under current conditions.
The problem is complex.
On one hand, several Arab states consider that the absence of Israel would undermine the credibility of any security mechanism from the outset.
On the other hand, many countries in the region now consider that the military operations of Israel in Lebanon, Gaza and parts of southern Syria have created a new perception according to which Tel Aviv is treated by part of the Arab world as a factor of tension.
Many Arab countries also accuse Benjamin Netanyahu of dragging Donald Trump into a conflict which they themselves wished to avoid.
This perception further strengthens the already existing frictions.
The silent confrontation between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates
Behind the overall plan, a second less visible competition also appears.
Although often treated as a single geopolitical bloc, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates maintain different approaches to the future of the region.
During the conflict, Abu Dhabi adopted a clearly tougher stance toward Tehran.
At the same time, it made clear that it seeks a further strengthening of relations with Israel.
Several analysts express doubts as to whether the United Arab Emirates would participate in a new regional mechanism that includes Iran.
And this may constitute a critical point.
It is worth noting that Iran directly accused the United Arab Emirates of direct involvement in the USA and Israel attacks while also making it known that it had warned the states of the region of retaliation, should they participate in the attacks.
A new Middle East or another lost opportunity?
The big question now is whether the initiative can overcome the historical burdens of the region.
The Middle East has known many ambitious diplomatic efforts that collapsed before the realities of power.
However today there may be different conditions.
The gradual reconfiguration of the American role, the emergence of new regional balances, the strengthening of multipolar trends and the fatigue from conflicts create new data.
For the first time in decades, the discussion does not concern who will dominate the Middle East.
It concerns whether the countries of the region themselves can create a new system of coexistence without waiting for the decisions of third parties.
And this may prove to be the most significant geopolitical change of the coming years.
The message from Iran via BRICS: The world is changing and the era of monopoly is ending
Behind the discussions about non-aggression agreements and new regional security architectures, a deeper geopolitical narrative is simultaneously taking shape.
Tehran is attempting to present developments not as an isolated conflict between Iran and its rivals, but as part of a broader historical transition: the gradual transition from a unipolar world to a new multipolar system.
Speaking at the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the BRICS in New Delhi, Abbas Araghchi attempted to give ideological and strategic depth to the position of Tehran.
The Iranian Foreign Minister argued that Iran not only did not bend under pressure but emerged stronger and more united. He presented the Iranian stance as a symbol of resistance against what he characterized as an imperial power in decline.
The reference had a clear geopolitical target.
In the perspective presented by Tehran, the world is in a phase of historical transition where traditional power structures are challenged and new poles of influence are gradually emerging.
Global historical transition
Abbas Araghchi argued that powers perceiving the retreat of their influence are attempting to react with increasingly aggressive moves in order to halt a development they consider inevitable.
Particular weight was also given to his reference to the BRICS, which he characterized as a symbol of a new global system where the so-called Global South acquires a leading role in shaping the future.
For Tehran, the importance of the BRICS transcends economic or commercial issues.
They are considered a platform for political balancing and a possible mechanism for restricting Western geopolitical influence.
The Iranian leadership appears to consider that today's conflicts do not exclusively concern borders, regional confrontations or military correlations.
They concern the very character of the international order that will be shaped in the coming decades.
Abbas Araghchi also brought back an argument that frequently recurs in the rhetoric of Tehran: that instability ultimately benefits no one.
According to the Iranian reading, even the countries that believe they reap short-term geopolitical benefits from conflicts later face broader economic, energy and strategic consequences.
The message to the countries of the region was clear: security can no longer be built through exclusions, wars and external interventions, but through new regional cooperation mechanisms.
And perhaps this constitutes the deepest dimension of the Saudi initiative and the Iranian rhetoric simultaneously: for the first time in decades, several powers of the region seem to be seeking a model where the Middle East will try to manage its balances with less dependence on external centers of power.
If this evolves into a real strategy and not a temporary diplomatic move, then we will possibly not be talking simply about a new security agreement, but about the beginning of a new geopolitical era in the Middle East.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments