Paul Salem
Source: Getty
Building Cooperation in the Eastern Middle East
A formal framework for communication and cooperation in the eastern Middle East could reduce the risks of conflict and encourage stability and economic development in this tense but critical location.
As the United States withdraws its forces from Iraq, there will be competition for regional influence by states in the eastern Middle East, including Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Gulf countries. A formal framework for communication and cooperation—similar to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe—could reduce the risks of conflict and encourage stability and economic development in this tense but critical location, according to a paper by Paul Salem.
Key Conclusions:
- There is already considerable interaction among Turkey, Iran, and a number of Arab countries, but if these relations are not organized along clear security and political parameters, misunderstanding can easily lead to increased tensions.
- Regional concerns over Iran’s nuclear program will make progress on developing a framework difficult.
- It is in Washington’s interest to support a cooperative framework in the eastern Middle East. Reducing tensions in the neighborhood could encourage Tehran in the long run to pursue more moderate and less paranoid policies.
- Other outside powers—most notably Europe, Russia, China, and India—should have an even stronger interest in progress toward sub-regional cooperation and stability. They oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and any armed conflict in the region would interrupt energy flow.
“There are escalating tensions in the eastern Middle East today, but this is precisely why the region’s leaders should increase their communication and interaction,” writes Salem. “Even in the context of unresolved threats, working toward such a framework is possible and necessary. The Helsinki Process and the OSCE were launched during the Cold War to build trust and cooperation in the context of mistrust and mutually perceived threats.”
About the Author
Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute
Paul Salem is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.
- Iraq’s Tangled Foreign Interests and RelationsPaper
- Bracing for Impact in SyriaArticle
Paul Salem
Recent Work
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Once Neutral on the Ukraine War, Arab States Increasingly Favor MoscowCommentary
Disillusioned with the West over Gaza, Arab countries are not only trading more with Russia; they are also more willing to criticize Kyiv.
Ruslan Suleymanov
- Baku Proceeds With Caution as Ethnic Azeris Join Protests in Neighboring IranCommentary
Baku may allow radical nationalists to publicly discuss “reunification” with Azeri Iranians, but the president and key officials prefer not to comment publicly on the protests in Iran.
Bashir Kitachaev
- What Russia Will—and Won’t—Do for Its Embattled Ally IranCommentary
It’s one thing to export Russian helicopters to Iran to fight the insurgency, and it’s easy to imagine Moscow becoming a haven for fleeing Iranian leaders. But it’s very difficult to imagine Russian troops defending the Iranian regime on the ground.
Nikita Smagin
- Trump’s Gaza Deal Belies the Kremlin’s Theory of a New Global OrderCommentary
The U.S. president’s successful imposition of a ceasefire on notorious sworn enemies who have both agreed to make concessions only highlights Putin’s intransigence and his lack of competence and reason.
Alexander Baunov
- What Does the New Reality in the Middle East Mean for Russia?Commentary
Trump’s Egypt summit may have thwarted the Kremlin’s attempts to get Middle Eastern leaders to congregate in Moscow, but Middle Eastern states are less and less convinced that the West can be relied upon, which is inevitably pushing them toward deals with Russia.
Nikita Smagin