In a commentary on March 31, the British newspaper the
Guardian wrote an article saying that the Persian Gulf Arab states are opposed
to a possible US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, believing it will make
the Middle East region more insecure.
“Widespread rejection in the Persian Gulf of a US-inspired
attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a relatively new factor in the equation,
and Trump’s plan to reportedly visit Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip
means he may personally hear strong opposition to an attack on Iran from the
Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman,” the Guardian wrote.
The following is the text of the article titled “Trump’s
bombing threat over Iran nuclear program prompts backlash”:
Iran has reacted with outrage after Donald Trump said
the country will be bombed if it does not accept US demands to constrain its
nuclear program.
The US
president said on Sunday that if Iran “Doesn’t make a deal, there
will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen
before.”
Trump’s latest threat – more explicit and violent than any
made before – came after he sent a letter to Iran, as yet undisclosed, offering
to hold talks on its nuclear program. Iran had sent a reply to the US stating
it was willing to hold indirect talks, officials confirmed.
Esmail Baghaei, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson,
said of Trump’s threat, “The explicit threat of bombing Iran by the head of a
country is clear contradiction to the essence of international peace and
security.
“Such a threat is a gross violation of the United Nations
charter and a violation of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards
regime. Violence brings violence and peace creates peace, America can choose.”
The Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a sceptic about talks
with the US, said Iran was not overly concerned by Trump’s words. “We consider
it unlikely that such harm would come from outside. However, if any malicious
act does occur, it will certainly be met with a firm
and decisive response,” he said.
Brig.
Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s aerospace
force, said, “Someone in glass houses does not throw stones at anyone,” adding:
“The Americans have at least 10 bases with 50,000 troops in the region, meaning
they are sitting in a glass house.”
But the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, clearly
had authority to keep the prospect of talks alive, saying Iran had already
replied to the Trump letter through intermediaries in Oman and adding he knew
the Iranian letter had now reached the US. Araghchi said direct talks were not
possible while the US continued to threaten and bully Iran.
Trump sent his original letter proposing talks through the
United Arab Emirates’ senior diplomatic envoy, Anwar Gargash.
Trump has set a deadline of mid-May for progress to be made,
but a longer deadline also exists of mid-August, by which time the original
2015 nuclear agreement will largely expire and a European response will be
required. Trump took the US out of that agreement in 2018, a move
widely seen as a mistake since it led Iran to speed up its uranium enrichment
program.
That Iran sent its reply through Oman, its traditional
chosen mediator, rather than the UAE may suggest Iran does not want the UAE –
which has normalized relations with Israel – to act as intermediaries. The US
and Iran had held indirect talks on reviving the nuclear agreement under the
Biden administration in Vienna from 2021, but they fizzled out, and all
sides agreed the indirect nature of the talks ate up time, something Trump is
reluctant to offer Iran.
Some of the ground will have been covered in four rounds of
parallel talks held between Iranian and European negotiators in Geneva.
Tehran has not commented on how broadly the Trump letter
went in demanding concessions from Iran. But the Iranian ambassador to Iraq,
Mohammad Kazem al-Sadegh, indicated the US was seeking talks that went wider
than the nuclear program, saying the letter called for the disbandment of the
Iranian-backed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces militia.
The US administration has been divided over whether to
simply demand Iran expose its civil nuclear program to fuller international
inspection, or make a wider set of demands including a complete end to its
nuclear program and an Iranian commitment to stop backing resistance groups in the
Middle East such as Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen.
The US national security adviser, Mike Waltz, has called for
the “full dismantlement” of the Iranian nuclear program, something Tehran
rejects. By contrast, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, spoke only of
restricting Iran’s nuclear program, something Iran has been willing to accept
since 2015 so long as it leads to a lifting of sanctions on the Iranian
economy.
Kamal Kharazi, the head of Iran’s Strategic Council on
Foreign Relations and sometimes touted as a chief negotiator, has accused the
US of operating a psychological war by adopting a policy of “either war or
negotiation”.
Widespread rejection in the Persian Gulf of a US-inspired
attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a relatively new factor in the equation,
and Trump’s plan to reportedly visit Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip
means he may personally hear strong opposition to an attack on Iran from the
Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.
The Persian Gulf’s opposition to an attack on Iran is based
not on close ideological affinity with Iran, but on a sense the region must
avoid further political instability.