Gulf Troubles... and the Torments of Geography

We have drawn many lessons from the painful and often bitter experiences that Kuwait endured and subsequently overcame, extracting from them the necessity of recognizing geographical realities. These realities demand that the Kuwaiti people remain constantly vigilant, alert, and responsive to the instincts dictated by this reality, as well as to the provocations that have attempted to derail the nation’s path, encroach upon its identity and integrity, and undermine its presence. Yet, none of these attempts have succeeded in harming it. From this reality, there is no escape from maintaining a continuous state of alertness while building robust defenses that strengthen the pillars of resilience and employ measures to ensure the permanent security and assured tranquility of the Kuwaiti people. Kuwait’s location imposes upon its people and government the imperative of securing permanent guarantees for a stable and firm peace, one that transcends all schemes devised by those with ambitions, particularly the plan whose contours are beginning to emerge through Iran’s attempts to impose its will on the region. This plan is based on the Strait of Hormuz and seeks to enable Iran to control the maritime passages in the Gulf.

There is no doubt that Tehran is urgently seeking to impose a map that ensures its dominance in the Gulf. It does not accept the international stance that treats the Gulf as a global maritime corridor where diverse interests coexist, forming the priorities of world nations, especially the Arab Gulf states. Clearly, these Arab Gulf states bordering the Gulf are committed to international rules governing navigation in all global passages. They have not sought to monopolize the passages or their resources and benefits, which are meant to be shared by all. The Iranian narrative and its vision regarding the Gulf ignore the rights of the Arab Gulf states and intensify insistence on the Persian name for the Gulf, viewing it as a historical acknowledgment of Iran’s right to sovereignty and administration.

During the Shah’s era, Iran’s position was to maintain the Persian name for the Gulf, but there was no insistence that the name granted Iran ownership rights over all Gulf waters. Flexibility and moderation in dealing with Arab neighbors reflected the Shah’s stance, emphasizing the historically used name without imposing expressions that imply sovereignty. In reality, the Iranian government’s dealings with the Arab Gulf states do not inspire confidence in the continuation of practical, realistic relations that are keen on preserving the path’s integrity and the strength of ties. Iranian military aggression against the sovereignty of Gulf states leaves no room for goodwill; rather, it fuels doubts about the sincerity of intentions and the seriousness of promises, while fears escalate regarding future trajectories. This is especially true given the tense atmosphere exacerbated by daily attacks that carry bombs of destruction into the airspace of Gulf states, destroying their airports and sabotaging the infrastructure of Gulf societies.

Iran justifies these aggressive raids by accusing Gulf states of allowing the United States to use their territories to strike Iran, despite Iran’s knowledge that the United States is capable of targeting from various locations by sea, air, or land. Iran persists in these accusations because they carry the intent to harm Gulf states. There is no doubt that tensions will intensify as Iranian attacks on Arab Gulf territories increase, while Gulf diplomacy will become more active in its efforts toward de-escalation. However, the likelihood of reaching a near-agreement that could halt the confrontation between the United States and Iran remains slim.

There is a Gulf and Arab resolve to emphasize de-escalation in the region, reflecting a collective Gulf and Arab awareness that the entire world seeks to achieve Gulf arrangements that deepen the foundations of stability, ensure security, and guarantee calm. This global pursuit of de-escalation will persist, as emphasizing stability in the Gulf stems from a universal human need that insists on continuing tranquility and calm in all areas constituting the Gulf region. Iran must bear the burden of responsibility in ensuring Gulf calm in cooperation with Gulf states, so that the geographic consensus of the Gulf emerges regarding the strength of the pillars of stability in the region. Iran does not need confrontations but rather participation in building a system of stability in the region. Everyone benefits from stability, and everyone will suffer from the encroachment of chaos on the Gulf stage, whether by sea, land, or air. These are the most prominent realities of the region, and their benefits increase with Gulf consensus on protecting these realities, maintaining their effectiveness, and respecting the security and tranquility they provide to the international community.

The question remains regarding the true intentions of Iran and the extent to which it feels the necessity of consensus and listening to the global call for an inevitable Iranian-Arab agreement to build a system of stability and de-escalation in the Gulf through effort and collective acceptance. There must be positive endorsement of the requirements of the international community in securing its energy needs and responding to the logic of solidarity, which calls for universal human solidarity to guarantee the needs of all parties in the international family. Gulf regional tension will persist as long as Iran continues its confrontational diplomacy, which it views as yielding desired gains and firm positions that provide it with political and moral rewards.

In reality, Iran’s objectives will not be achieved as long as collective partnership in Gulf security exists. Iran cannot impose its objectives on partners, nor will it accept compromise solutions dictated by the concepts of partnership. In light of this reality, the absence of regional understanding will remain distant from partnership diplomacy; without its effectiveness, collective Gulf understanding will not be achieved, and tension will persist alongside the absence of understanding and the escalation of the likelihood of disagreement and tension. Iran continues to seek a unique status that grants it distinction in position and content, preserving its distinction in the integrity of its geographic position in the Gulf. No matter how hard Iran pursues its love for distinction, it will not achieve what satisfies it at the expense of the interests of the Arab Gulf states. The likelihood of disagreement between the two sides will remain certain, for without agreement, the likelihood of disagreement increases.