Outcome of three years of regional confrontation The emergence of new alliances
Outcome of three years of regional confrontation: The emergence of new alliances
LONDON -- The outcome of the confrontations that have taken place across the West Asia region since October 7 must be understood in the context of all the interconnected fronts, including Gaza, Lebanon, and, most recently, Iran. The U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran will ultimately determine the overall outcome of the conflicts across all these fronts and the changes that have taken place.
One conclusion has become clear, that is the Israeli occupation entity has not achieved all of its declared objectives in these arenas, while the changes that have taken place in Syria with the overthrow of the Beshar al-Assad government have not resulted in any clear stability. Instead, the situation remains open to multiple possibilities.
Therefore, an assessment of the war should not be limited to the scale of military strikes or the damage inflicted on one side or another. It must also consider the political outcomes achieved, the objectives that remain unfulfilled, the ability to impose the terms of a settlement, and the nature of the regional order that will emerge once the confrontation ends.
New alliances reveal a crisis of confidence due to lack of external protection that the countries in West Asia now feel. One indication of declining American influence is the diplomatic activity and meetings bringing together a number of international and regional powers. These include Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, at a meeting held in Turkey on the 23rd of October 2023.
The significance of these developments lies in the fact that they reflect the participating countries' search for frameworks for coordination and cooperation. This is amid declining confidence in America's ability to manage regional crises and guarantee the security of its allies, in the way they have traditionally expected.
This also reflects a growing lack of confidence in the United States among European countries. The fact that these meetings are taking place does not, in itself, mean that the United States has completely lost its influence. However, it raises questions about the extent to which countries in the region are prepared to continue relying on the American security umbrella, as the sole guarantor of stability.
In the same context, an agreement was reached in Qatar on the October 21 with the participation of Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia and Qatar. It is aimed at activating defense industries and establishing defense cooperation. This comes alongside the defense alliance previously discussed within the framework of the Mecca defense pact between Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
These developments reflect a move towards diversifying sources of defense capability, expanding military and industrial partnerships. This is to avoid the restriction of regional security arrangements to a bilateral relationship with the United States. The ultimate focal point of these changes is Iran. It is Iran that has made all this activity necessary, as a result of the loosening of America's grip, the exposure of its weaknesses, and the growing need for its withdrawal from West Asia.
However, it is important to distinguish between establishing frameworks for defense, industrial cooperation and transforming them into a fully integrated military alliance that is capable of operating jointly under all circumstances. Achieving this would require clarity regarding the nature of mutual commitments, command and coordination mechanisms, and the limits of intervention in regional conflicts.
This is something Iran must lead and direct. The existing alliances between Arab countries and external parties, whether Islamic or European, are fragile. They lack the necessary tools and determination. Iran, on the other hand, has the capacity to act and organize, as well as the tools and resolve needed to become the driving force behind the region's future.
As for Turkey and Pakistan, they are seeking to achieve two main objectives through these arrangements: to gain economic benefits from cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and to strengthen their strategic presence in the region. For example, during the first test in the Saudi-Yemeni confrontation, Turkey and Pakistan showed reservations about becoming involved in a confrontation with the Ansarallah resistance movement in Yemen. This was partly because the conflict had begun before some of these arrangements were established, and partly because military intervention could lead to a costly war of attrition.
These new alliances should not be interpreted as a unified alignment against a particular party. Rather, they should be understood as an attempt by participating countries to advance their own interests, expand their room for maneuver, and avoid becoming entirely dependent on the calculations of a single external power.
Saudi Arabia and the search for security alternatives
Saudi Arabia's move towards diversifying its defense partnerships reflects a growing sense that absolute reliance on American protection is no longer sufficient to guarantee its security under all circumstances.
The American-Israeli war against Iran demonstrated that the presence of foreign troops, military bases and alliances does not necessarily prevent threats from reaching the countries hosting those forces, or maintaining security relationships with them. This highlights the idea that the national security of countries in the region cannot remain entirely dependent on external protection. These countries must consider security arrangements that take their own interests and immediate security risks into account.
The significance of this shift is that it does not concern Saudi Arabia alone; it relates to the entire concept of regional security. Can the countries of the region build a relatively independent security system, or will they remain constrained by arrangements that depend on external powers, whose priorities may change according to their own interests?
This will become clear through the extent to which the surrounding countries respond to Iran's vision, particularly given that they have come together, almost collectively, around Iran, despite Iran being the cornerstone of this vision.
source: tehrantimes.com