• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [],
  "type": "pressRelease",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Iran",
    "Israel",
    "North Africa",
    "Egypt",
    "Iraq",
    "Jordan",
    "Bahrain",
    "Kuwait",
    "Qatar",
    "Saudi Arabia",
    "United Arab Emirates"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Press Release

Dealing with Iran requires an effective regional strategy

Any effective U.S. diplomatic approach to Iran must involve other countries in the Gulf, but Washington will not succeed if it continues to strive for an anti-Iranian alliance. A normalization of relations between Iran and its neighbors is an important and attainable step for reintegrating Iran into the international community.

Link Copied
Published on Nov 12, 2009

WASHINGTON, Nov 12—Any effective U.S. diplomatic approach to Iran must involve other countries in the Gulf, but Washington will not succeed if it continues to strive for an anti-Iranian alliance. While an overall security arrangement including all Gulf countries is not possible at this stage, a normalization of relations between Iran and its neighbors is an important and attainable step for reintegrating Iran into the international community, Marina Ottaway concludes in a new paper.

Gulf countries can help engage Iran in negotiations, but messy and often significant divisions between them complicate efforts to normalize relations. Ottaway analyzes Iran’s relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman—as well as Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Iraq.

Key Conclusions:

  • Despite common fears over Iran’s rising power and potential nuclear threat, GCC countries are neither united in their response nor willing to confront Iran in public. They vacillate between overtures of goodwill and disputes over borders, oil rights, and religious sectarianism.
  • The GCC has no leader in developing an Iran policy. Saudi Arabia, a natural choice because of its size and wealth, has a long history of cautious policies that maintain the status quo.
  • Egypt and Israel view Iran as a completely hostile entity and do nothing to hide their views, but it is unrealistic to anchor a regional strategy on their positions. Israel is not recognized by most of its neighbors, and Egypt faces a looming succession and diminished regional influence.
  • Despite a long history of animosity, Iraq’s relations with Iran are improving as Iran cultivates ties with Iraq’s now dominant Shi’i political factions. These ties have aroused suspicion among Iraq’s mainly Sunni neighbors and prevented Iraq’s full reintegration in the region.
  • The United States should not force the GCC countries to choose sides between the United States and Iran, nor Iraq and Iran.

“Although during the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program Gulf countries are essentially spectators to a process—the outcome of which will be determined by the United States, Iran, major European countries, Russia, and China—GCC countries have an important role to play in the difficult process of reintegrating Iran into the international community,” Ottaway writes. “Normalization of relations among the GCC countries, Iraq, and Iran would be a positive step in this process of reintegration. It would also help stabilize the region, decreasing tensions and the possibility of conflicts over bilateral issues that might trigger more serious problems.”

###


NOTES

  • Click here to read the paper online
  • Click here to read the paper in Arabic
  • Marina Ottaway, director of the Carnegie Middle East Program, specializes in democracy and post-conflict reconstruction issues, with special focus on problems of political transformation in the Middle East.
  • The Carnegie Middle East Program combines in-depth local knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to examine economic, socio-political, and strategic interests in the Arab world to provide analysis and recommendations in both English and Arabic that are deeply informed by knowledge and views from the region.
  • The Carnegie Middle East Center based in Beirut, Lebanon, aims to better inform the process of political change in the Middle East.
  • Carnegie's Arab Reform Bulletin offers a monthly analysis of political and economic developments in Arab countries.
  • Press Contact: David Kampf, 202/939-2233, dkampf@ceip.org
Foreign PolicyUnited StatesMiddle EastIranIsraelNorth AfricaEgyptIraqJordanBahrainKuwaitQatarSaudi ArabiaUnited Arab Emirates

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?

    French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for Europe

    The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU Needs a Third Way in Iran

    European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.

      Richard Youngs

  • Trump United Nations multilateralism institutions 2236462680
    Article
    Resetting Cyber Relations with the United States

    For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.

      • Christopher Painter

      Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not Less

    Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.

      Dimitar Bechev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.