Lessons from the War: A Call to Reshape Strategy in West Asia

In a recent statement, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) asserted that “Iran’s attacks have led to a serious loss of trust from member states toward Iran, requiring Iran to make active and serious efforts to rebuild confidence.” While rebuilding trust is a noble and essential goal, and while Iran has always been proactive in this regard, all parties must recognize their own responsibility for the current regrettable state of affairs.

The unprovoked invasion of Iran was the product of egregious miscalculations. It was based on the illusion that Iran was weak and incapable of mounting a robust defense or retaliation against a large-scale assault by two nuclear powers, backed by regional allies. Policymakers in Washington, Tel Aviv, and some regional capitals convinced themselves that a swift campaign combining economic pressure, sabotage, covert operations, decapitation strikes, and widespread war crimes could topple the Islamic Republic of Iran. They were wrong. Iran’s response, albeit measured but resolute, demonstrated its military resilience and ability to react on a scale far beyond the region.

Arab neighbors in the GCC bear a large share of responsibility for these miscalculations—and Iran may have inadvertently contributed to their misperceptions. For five decades, they have backed the wrong side of history—supporting Saddam Hussein’s invasion and even aiding Israel in intercepting Iranian missiles fired in self-defense after Israel assassinated an Arab leader on Iranian soil. Some countries actively encouraged U.S. military action against Iran, even requesting that the U.S. add the Iranian navy to its target list. In return, they allowed the U.S. to establish military bases on their territory for deployment and logistics for numerous acts of aggression and war crimes against Iran. They openly sided with the U.S. as it committed war crimes against Iran, reminiscent of the dark days when these Muslim brothers sided with Saddam Hussein as he used chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and Iraqi Kurds. Massive human and financial losses were inflicted on the Iranian people through deliberate, illegal attacks launched from the sovereign territory of Arab neighbors. Even when it became clear that the U.S. was preparing to commit systematic war crimes against Iranian civilians—including attacks on residential areas and critical infrastructure—they were unwilling to ban or restrict the use of their land, airspace, and military facilities for these war crimes against fellow Muslims in Iran.

Some Arab neighbors in the GCC wrongly hoped that Iran would be paralyzed and unable to respond, or that it would continue to turn a blind eye to their complicity in the invasion of Iran’s territorial integrity and existence. That illusion proved tragic, and Iran had no choice but to respond—though still with moderation and restraint—to attacks launched or supplied from the territory of GCC member states.

Moving forward, neighbors must shed distorted perceptions of the past and false claims of victimhood. A turning point is approaching for the region. The conflict has exposed the fragility of imported security architectures and the enduring strength of indigenous power and regional security networks. Instead of clinging to old alliances, regional brothers should pause and reassess. The true lesson from this period points toward a future based on self-reliance, regional agency, and an inclusive security network.

First, Iran and its Arab neighbors will continue to exist. Iran has endured sanctions, foreign-sponsored terrorism, hybrid warfare, and even decapitation for nearly five decades. Iran’s population, though diverse, has repeatedly shown unity in the face of foreign intervention. Tehran has the means to deal with existential threats, and geography gives it leverage that could heavily impact global markets if pushed too far. Iran’s restraint for so long created a false impression that the Strait of Hormuz could remain open for everyone while Iran was fundamentally deprived by illegal and unethical U.S. sanctions—from which neighbors have greatly benefited, building wealth on the illegal suffering of their Iranian brothers.

More importantly, Iran’s strength is neither imported nor artificial; it is endogenous, rooted in immutable factors: the millennia-old history of a resilient civilizational state, a rich and cohesive culture, a young and educated population, and a survival instinct honed through centuries of resistance to outside domination. No foreign pressure can alter these foundations. Neighbors who continue to bet against this reality have only themselves to blame for ignoring geography, history, and demography.

Second, the “security and development model” pursued by some Arab states has proven profoundly flawed. For years, the simple formula was to buy security by spending lavishly on the most sophisticated U.S. weapons and hosting U.S. military bases—even Israeli intelligence and terror centers—and then attract foreign investment under that imported security umbrella. This model has neither delivered genuine security nor the stability needed for sustainable economic growth.

The perception that some Arab capitals sided with the U.S. and Israel against a neighboring Muslim state has earned them a bad reputation throughout the Islamic world. That reputational damage was then worsened by the rude and condescending comments of the U.S. president targeting them. Now, reports that Washington is considering pressuring neighbors to pay for a war launched at their expense and on behalf of Israel only confirm the core skepticism of this arrangement. The biggest mistake would be to continue clinging to this failed model after the guns fall silent. Continuing to tie national security and economic future to outside patrons—who use their bases as springboards for aggression against neighbors and treat them as subservient clients—is a recipe for permanent dependency and recurring humiliation.

Third, the war has created political and legal realities that neighbors must recognize. The presence of U.S. bases—from which invasions aimed at “wiping out Iranian civilization” were launched and supplied—cannot be seen as innocent, neutral security partnerships but as an existential threat to Iran—as proven in the last two wars and previous hostile actions against Iran. These bases were erected not to protect the host country but to harm Iran, even at the expense of the host country. Arab states that continue to host these facilities are actively participating in the militarization of the region, including the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for their own economies.

Fourth, the deepening Israeli presence in the region has only brought conflict and will bring nothing but insecurity and the erosion of state independence. Israel does not just occupy land; it infiltrates political systems through sophisticated networks of lobbyists and pressure groups. It hollows out sovereignty from within, turning national decision-making into an extension of its own interests. To understand the pattern, just look at how AIPAC has captured the main levers of power in Washington, or how similar organizations have replicated the model in European capitals. Note the anger in the U.S. over how Israel—which has never once helped its American benefactors—imposes its will at the cost of U.S. blood and treasure. Arab states that rushed to normalize relations with Tel Aviv—or wish to copy its behavior—have traded long-term autonomy for short-term image. The people of the region deserve better than to see their governments’ foreign policy increasingly directed from afar. A regime that actively blackmails its patron, including through the Epstein dossier, cannot be expected to treat better those who want to outsource their security to its useless Iron Dome.

Fifth, and most constructively, Iran’s previous initiatives—such as the Hormuz Peace Initiative (HOPE), the West Asian Islamic Dialogue Forum (MWADA), and the Middle East Nuclear Research and Progress Network (MENARA)—have shown a genuine desire to reach out to neighbors to establish inclusive regional cooperation networks. Ignoring or even dismissing these offers under the illusion that Washington would provide solid security was a historic mistake. The way forward lies in correcting past mistakes and embracing a truly local security network regime based on shared interests.

West Asia is endowed with vast resources, energy, ancient cultures, a common religion, and centuries of intertwined history. These assets must be leveraged to build a new regional network capable of addressing common challenges—from water scarcity and climate change to economic diversification and technological progress—without outside tutelage. A regional security network built by the region and for the region is no longer a distant slogan; it is a strategic necessity.

The war has ended the era of comfortable illusions. It is clear that security cannot be bought or outsourced. Nor can security be achieved through insecurity and threats aimed at Iran. With this war, reality cannot be ignored, and Iran’s grievances cannot be hidden. Foreigners come only to exploit and will leave as soon as costs outweigh benefits. But we are fated to live together until Judgment Day. Iran has shown it cannot be subdued by the war machine of the greatest evil forces, yet it longs to live in peace with its Muslim brothers in the region. The real question is whether the rest of West Asia will be wise enough to adapt to that enduring truth. Let us seize this moment to build a future defined by mutual respect, dignity, security, and shared prosperity.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.