How to defuse regional tensions
Though the US and Iran want to go back to the nuclear deal, they both have suspicions, and negotiations have now been postponed until mid-August, after Iranian Presidentelect Ebrahim Raisi takes office.
However, Iran is not the only country in the Middle East with nuclear facilities. Israel has been a nuclear power since the 1960s, while the UAE has one active nuclear reactor. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan also plan to join the club of countries with nuclear power plants. Hence, any new nuclear deal should include a clause that requires all countries in the region to agree not to attack nuclear facilities, similar to the agreement signed by Pakistan and India in 1988. It is in Iran’s interest to be bound by a deal that covers the entire region, including Israel, in order to protect its own facilities. A separate, parallel agreement can be agreed under the UN’s auspices to bind the various countries not to target any nuclear facility.
The second step would be to oblige those who signed up to such an agreement to sign a deal covering ballistic missiles, whereby they would agree to limit their weapons to a certain range. The many Iranians I have met have taken the position of the underdog, questioning why Iran is not allowed to have missiles that can reach Tel Aviv or Riyadh, while Israel and
Saudi Arabia have missiles that can reach Tehran. However, the problem with missiles is mainly their proliferation among non-state actors, as it is difficult to hold the suppliers responsible. We saw this with the attack on the Saudi oil facilities at Khurais and Aqbaiq in September 2019. Though there was speculation that the missiles came from inside Iran, close to its border with Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen claimed they were behind the attack, making it difficult to hold Tehran liable. Technically, Saudi Arabia is at war with the Houthis and, therefore, the group was attacking its “enemy.” Iran would not openly fire missiles at Saudi Arabia or Israel, as such an act would be a declaration of war and, as the aggressor, Tehran would have to bear the consequences.
Any deal on ballistic missiles should include a clause on missile proliferation among non-state actors. If such a deal were ratified, it would be easy to hold Iran responsible whenever an incident similar to that at Aqbaiq and Khurais occurred and the source of the missile was identified. This would stop the cross-border threats arising from non-state actors and would greatly limit their ability to destabilize neighboring countries. This could be the first step toward reining in the non-state actors.
The agreement could be developed to regulate and limit support for non-state actors. Once we have that, we will have a detente between the regional powers that could tremendously decrease tensions in the region.
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese NGO focused on Track II. She is also an affiliate scholar with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut.