Over the past decades, the foreign policy of Iran toward Arab countries in the region has been shaped by consistent and predictable principles: emphasis on neighborhood relations, Islamic brotherhood, mutual respect, and efforts toward peaceful coexistence. This approach has been part of a long-term strategy that has manifested itself at various critical regional moments. Even in periods when regional tensions have reached their peak and Iran itself has been subjected to direct attacks, the overall framework of this policy has not undergone any fundamental change.
Under current circumstances, as Iran faces direct aggression from United States and Israel, Tehran’s behavior toward Arab countries can also be understood within the same framework. Iran has repeatedly declared that it has no intention of extending war into the geography of neighboring countries. At the same time, one clear principle exists in Iran’s defense policy: responding to the source of threat. In other words, if a location in an Arab country becomes a base for launching attacks against Iran, that point will be considered part of the conflict equation. From this perspective, Iran’s action is defined not against the host country itself, but against the origin of the attack.
Although this distinction is sometimes overlooked in the region’s complex media environment, it is essential for understanding Iran’s behavior. Iran has sought to convey clearly that the security of regional countries—especially its Arab neighbors—matters to Tehran, and that any unwanted escalation results from the involvement of extra-regional actors and the use of these countries’ territory against Iran.
Among Arab countries, Oman holds a special place in relations with Iran. Relations between Tehran and Muscat have consistently been built on mutual trust and respect for each other’s interests. Oman has not only avoided becoming an arena for destabilizing rivalries, but has also played the role of mediator and facilitator of dialogue at sensitive moments. By understanding regional sensitivities, the country has not allowed its territory to become a platform for hostile actions against Iran, and this approach has strengthened friendly ties between the two countries. Oman has effectively demonstrated that it is possible to maintain relations with different actors while preserving independent decision-making and contributing to regional stability.
Qatar is another example of an Arab actor that has sought to pursue a balanced policy based on mediation. Relations between Iran and Doha, despite some ups and downs, have generally remained positive and cooperative. During the 2017 blockade of Qatar, Iran played an important role in easing pressure on Doha by opening air and sea routes. This experience highlighted the capacity for cooperation between the two countries during times of crisis.
At the same time, criticisms regarding Qatar have also existed. One of them is that Doha should exercise greater caution to ensure that its territory does not become a platform for military action against Iran. Nevertheless, in an overall assessment, Iran regards Qatar as a friendly country in the region and emphasizes the continuation of positive relations. Qatar’s mediating approach—if accompanied by strategic independence—can also contribute to reducing tensions across the region.
Regarding other Arab countries in the region, Iran’s position is equally clear. Tehran has consistently declared that it has no inherent conflict with Arab states and remains ready to expand relations based on mutual respect and shared interests. What generates tension is not any fundamental disagreement between nations, but rather policies adopted by certain governments in full alignment with the United States and Israel. When such alignment leads to the provision of infrastructure and territory for military actions against Iran, those states effectively place themselves within a costly strategic equation.
Iran maintains that regional security should be provided by the countries of the region themselves. The experience of recent decades has shown that the presence of extra-regional powers has not led to stability, but rather has added complexity to crises. From prolonged wars to chronic instability, all indicate that external actors are often less concerned with the security and welfare of regional populations than with securing their own strategic interests.
Within this framework, neither the United States nor Israel can be regarded as actors genuinely pursuing lasting security in the region. Their policies have largely been based on managing tension, expanding arms sales, and preserving strategic superiority. The result of such an approach has been the continuation of insecurity and mistrust—a condition whose highest costs are paid by regional states and their people.
By contrast, Iran has repeatedly emphasized the idea of establishing a collective security arrangement in the Persian Gulf region. This idea is based on the participation of all Arab countries of the region without the involvement of external actors. The aim is to create mechanisms for dialogue, dispute resolution, and the prevention of security misunderstandings. Realizing such a framework, however, requires political will and a reduction of external dependency.
Overall, it can be said that Iran’s approach toward Arab countries in the region is based on engagement, respect, and cooperation—provided that these countries also refrain from becoming instruments of pressure against Tehran. Iran has demonstrated that where mutual political will exists, it is prepared to expand relations across different sectors. More than ever, regional security requires internal cooperation and distance from foreign intervention—a path that may be difficult, but remains the only sustainable option for a stable future in the Persian Gulf region and beyond.
MNA
Your Comment