Another troubling reality is the growing perception that
negotiations are being used more to buy time than to build trust. If the United
States is preparing harsher assaults under the cover of diplomacy, Iran would
naturally be using the same period to regroup, rebuild capabilities, and
recalibrate its response strategy. This creates a dangerous cycle in which
diplomacy and escalation move together rather than separately.
Meanwhile, the economic costs for America’s Arab allies are
becoming increasingly painful. Continued disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has
severely affected regional oil exports, threatened revenues, investor
confidence, and fiscal stability across Gulf economies that depend heavily on
uninterrupted energy flows.
More alarming for Arab capitals is Iran’s demonstrated
ability to strike strategic installations with precision. These attacks have
shaken the long-standing assumption that Western military protection alone can
guarantee regional security. The uncomfortable realization now emerging is that
even advanced defense arrangements cannot fully shield critical infrastructure
from a determined regional adversary.
This explains the visible cracks within the broader Arab strategy.
Initial assumptions that Iran could be rapidly subdued or strategically
isolated are giving way to a more cautious assessment. Tehran has proved far
more resilient than many expected.
The Arab world now faces a difficult choice - continue
supporting an escalating confrontation with uncertain outcomes or adopt a more
pragmatic approach toward coexistence. This does not require endorsement of
Iran’s regional policies. It simply demands recognition of geopolitical
realities.
If the strategy of forcing Iran into submission has failed,
Arab states may ultimately have to learn to live with the lesser evil — giving
Tehran limited political space and rebuilding workable relations before the
region slides into a wider and far more destructive conflict.
