JOIN USFuture looks better
It was a summit to address disagreements and discontent between two longstanding partners – the US and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. The headlines ahead of the talks were anything but positive – Saudi snub, frosty relations and the US president’s comment that domestic issues, not Iran, is GCC’s real problem, among others. The outcome, however, could not have been better – even if it appears more symbolic than specific.
Washington successfully addressed two interlinked, sensitive issues – assuaging the GCC’s misgivings with regard to Iran’s nuclear agreement talks, without undermining the rapprochement with Tehran. The fact that none reacted adversely after the summit suggests that it was a happy ending of one, and a hopeful beginning of another, chapter in the book of tense US-GCC-Iran ties.
The May 14 Camp David summit concluded with a joint statement pledging iron clad American support for Gulf regional security. It also includes the US commitment to bolster security cooperation with the GCC countries on counter-terrorism, maritime security, cyber-security and ballistic missile defence. This, according to GCC Assistant Secretary-General Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg, meant the summit “exceeded the expectations of most of us” and that “an impending nuclear deal with Iran does not represent a ‘pivot’ toward Tehran.”
Speaking on behalf of the six GCC countries – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates – Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al Jubeir said the summit was “unprecedented” and brought US-Gulf ties to an “entirely different level over next decades.”
Such responses are rare in the West Asia’s turbulent diplomatic scenario. This may not mean that the GCC countries are ready to unconditionally accept a nuclear agreement that may be signed between Iran and six world powers later this year. They, nevertheless, help clarify some contentious issues.
First, the positions of the US and the GCC countries on their Iran policies are clearer. This helps weaken critics in the US, the GCC countries, and Iran, who claim that all the negotiating parties are not on the same page. It is true that they are not absolutely on the same page, but there is no doubt that they are all reading the same book.
This is particularly relevant to Israel, whose prime minister is hoping that the perceived differences among the parties concerned will torpedo any nuclear agreement with Iran. It is noteworthy that the joint statement emphasises “that a comprehensive, verifiable deal that fully addresses the regional and international concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme is in the security interests of GCC countries as well as the US and the international community.”
Second, the joint statement reinforces Gulf regional security concerns and committed US military assistance if the GCC countries faced external aggression – “The United States and GCC countries oppose and will work together to counter Iran’s destabilising activities in the region and stress the need for Iran to engage the region according to the principles of good neighbourliness, strict non-interference in domestic affairs, and respect for territorial integrity…”
Third, extending this argument to the wider West Asia region, the joint statement criticises Syrian leader Bashar Al Assad, but without the “Assad must go” tone of the past. It reaffirms that “Assad has no legitimacy and has no role in Syria’s future.” It also stresses US-GCC commitments to counter Al Qaeda and the Islamic State across the region.
Armed civil conflicts
Moreover, the annex of the joint statement states: “The leaders set out core principles that must govern efforts to resolve regional armed civil conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, including the respect for state sovereignty; a shared recognition that there is no military solution to the region’s civil conflicts, and that they can only be resolved through political and peaceful means; and the importance of inclusive governance; and respect for, and protection of, minorities and human rights.”
Fourth, the summit’s outcome helps President Barack Obama’s efforts to recalibrate and reposition US foreign policy – from conflictual to consensual politics. While reassuring the GCC partners about the US’s unwavering support, Obama made clear that “the purpose of any strategic cooperation is not to perpetuate any long-term confrontation with Iran, or to even marginalise Iran.”
The joint statement mentions that “the US and GCC countries reaffirmed their willingness to develop normalised relations with Iran should it cease its destabilising activities and their belief that such relations would contribute to regional security.” The fact that such an approach leaves the door open for Iran to follow constructive policies and reinforces Obama’s personal image as an ‘honest broker’ are bonuses.
Fifth, with no credible alternative security partner emerging on the horizon, the summit’s outcome helps the GCC to reflect on its security choices – only the US or only regional solutions or shift towards Europe or Asia; or an intelligent and practical combination of all these as part of a new collective and cooperative Gulf security architecture.
Finally, what all these mean is that the predominantly Sunni GCC countries are open to supporting an eventual nuclear deal, provided the US helps contain an empowered and Shiite Iran’s influence in the region. The fact that there is no mention that the GCC countries will take the nuclear route if Iran is allowed to remain nuclear is a double whammy.
(The writer is a Dubai-based political analyst, author and honorary fellow of the University of Exeter)