Arab States Oppose Israel Strikes Despite Iran Concerns: A Shifting Middle East Order

The recent de-escalation between Iran and Israel, following a direct military exchange in April, has brought a measure of relief to Arab capitals. However, beneath the surface lies a growing anxiety about a shifting regional order, one where traditional alliances are being tested and the potential for instability remains high. The flare-up, and the international response to it, has exposed deep fissures in the Middle East, revealing a pragmatic, if reluctant, acceptance of re-engagement with Iran alongside a profound distrust of unchecked Israeli power.

When the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was initially agreed upon in 2015, it was met with skepticism, and often outright opposition, from many Arab Gulf states. The perception was that the deal, brokered by the Obama administration and including China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, would empower Iran, allowing it to further its regional ambitions. These ambitions included its support for Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria – a conflict that has caused one of the most devastating humanitarian crises in modern Arab history – and its influence in Iraq and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia, in particular, viewed the JCPOA as a flawed agreement that failed to address its concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for proxy groups.

A Shifting Calculus in the Gulf

the withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA under President Donald Trump in 2018 was largely welcomed by these same states. Even Egypt and Jordan, which maintained a more cautious stance, expressed reservations about Tehran’s regional agenda. Leaders across the region reacted with varying degrees of approval to the US decision. However, the recent direct conflict between Iran and Israel has forced a reassessment of this position. Despite their deep-seated distrust of the Iranian regime, Gulf states found themselves opposing a wider war with Iran and, surprisingly, supporting efforts to de-escalate tensions and re-engage in diplomatic talks.

This shift isn’t born of newfound trust in Tehran. The Arab Gulf states remain deeply cynical about the Iranian regime and its long-term goals. Many would likely welcome a change in leadership in Iran, one that prioritizes pragmatism over ideological fervor. However, this cynicism has evolved into a pragmatic rejection of war, particularly one instigated by a belligerent Israel and perceived as facilitated by a willing Washington. The recent strikes, and America’s bombing on June 22, were met with fierce opposition from Arab capitals.

The Gaza Context and Regional Concerns

This opposition stems from two core concerns. First, the strikes against Iran did not occur in a vacuum. For the past 20 months, Israel has been engaged in a devastating military campaign in Gaza following the October 7th Hamas attack. This campaign has resulted in widespread destruction and a mounting death toll, leading to accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice. The scale of the destruction in Gaza has drawn international condemnation and fueled resentment towards Israel throughout the Arab world. Israel has also expanded its military footprint beyond the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and repeatedly struck Beirut and parts of Lebanon.

Even among states critical of Iran, there are growing concerns about an unrestrained Israel. A regional order where Israel operates with impunity, dictating security norms to its neighbors, is profoundly unwelcome to Arab states, including those traditionally aligned with the West, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. This sentiment is fueled by a long-standing perception of Western double standards in the application of international law and norms.

A History of Perceived Double Standards

For decades, Arab societies have criticized what they see as the selective enforcement of international norms by Western powers. This includes the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and more recently, the U.S. Denunciation of the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. The Iraq War remains a potent symbol of perceived Western hypocrisy. There is a widespread belief that powerful Western states shield Israel from accountability, fostering a sense of injustice and undermining trust in the “rules-based” order.

The U.S. Bombing of Iran, utilizing the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator – the heaviest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal – further exacerbated these concerns. Despite Iran’s problematic regional behavior, there was no imminent threat, no authorization from the UN Security Council, and no broad international consensus to justify such a military strike. Critics argued that the strike mirrored the unilateralism that characterized the lead-up to the Iraq War.

The JCPOA’s Legacy and Future Prospects

The withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA in 2018, and the subsequent reimposition of sanctions, led Iran to gradually roll back its commitments under the agreement. As of early 2023, UN inspectors reported that Iran had enriched trace amounts of uranium to nearly weapons-grade levels, raising serious concerns about its nuclear program. The Council on Foreign Relations details the history of the JCPOA and the subsequent fallout from the US withdrawal. The current situation leaves the future of the deal uncertain. While both Washington and Tehran have expressed a willingness to return to the original agreement, they remain deeply divided on the steps required to achieve that goal.

What Happens Next?

The immediate aftermath of the Iran-Israel exchange has seen a concerted effort to de-escalate tensions, largely facilitated by regional and international actors. However, the underlying issues that fueled the conflict remain unresolved. The path forward is likely to involve a complex series of diplomatic initiatives, aimed at restoring the JCPOA and addressing regional security concerns. The role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be crucial in verifying Iran’s compliance with any future agreement. The United States and Iran will need to find a way to bridge their differences and rebuild trust. Simultaneously, addressing the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the broader regional tensions will be essential to creating a more stable and secure Middle East. The coming months will be critical in determining whether the region can avoid a further escalation of conflict and move towards a more sustainable peace.